On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:22 PM, stevea <[email protected]> wrote:
> John Firebaugh writes: > >> The political boundaries of US National Forests should not be tagged >> landuse=forest unless the entirety of their area is land primarily managed >> for timber production. I venture to assert that this is not true for *any* >> of the National Forests. Here are some examples of areas within National >> Forests that are not "primarily managed for timber production". >> > > OK, so say so where so. (Tag in OSM accordingly). If you wish to > "subtract from the polygon" areas which you are absolutely certain no > timber production is allowed or possible, go for it. > It wouldn't be correct to exclude areas where no timber production is allowed or possible from the multipolygon indicating the political boundaries of a National Forest. That would mark such areas as not included inside the boundaries, when in fact they are included. There should be (at least) two separate entities in the database.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
