But, in the United States, forests are not always about
timber production. You won't get any timber for building from
a pinon-juniper forest. The trees are too small (though you will
get great pinon nuts and mesquite charcoal).
It would be a serious problem for OSM if we don't provide
a way for renderers to indicate the national forests boundaries
clearly and distinctly, including our own renderer (because that's
what most people use, folks).
Charlotte
At 10:10 AM 8/17/2015, you wrote:
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
<<mailto:[email protected]>[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
Charlotte Wolter
927 18th Street Suite A
Santa Monica, California
90403
+1-310-597-4040
[email protected]
Skype: thetechlady
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
