The issue, as I see it, is that the OSM landuse=forest means that all the land so designated is used for timber production. Thus the long discussions about natural=wood, landcover=trees, etc. In the case of the US National Forests, the boundaries are still tagged with boundary=national_park, boundary:type=protected_area, protect_class=6 and protection_title=National Forest which should be enough for a map renderer to decide to paint the area in a distinctive area.
> On Aug 17, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Charlotte Wolter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I see your point that it's not a "natural" forest, but national > forests are important institutions as preserves, especially, in addition > to their other uses (recreation, research). > Having just returned from a camping vacation in the Southwest, > I am especially aware that the national forests, as an institution, play > an important role there. On most map systems, they are noted by their > green color, and that is what most map users expect to see. They use > the color to plan where to camp and where they can conduct certain > activities (hunting, fishing). > Shouldn't their special status be noted somehow? > > Charlotte >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
