Bradley White <theangrytom...@gmail.com <mailto:theangrytom...@gmail.com>>
writes:
> Just to add my two cents, I do not think that "landuse=forest" should be
> tagged with national forest boundaries.
I would like to be clear, here: I USED TO believe this, as it was the “best
practice” at the time, and so I DID tag like this. But this was back in
2010-12 or so. Meanwhile, the boundary=protected_area tag developed and
evolved, and now I tag US National Forests with this (when I do) along with
protect_class=6 (or protect_class=1b on Wilderness areas). This is widely
accepted in OSM in the USA.
As an aside, I STILL believe that it is/would be correct WITHIN this boundary
to ALSO tag landuse=forest where it is KNOWN (ground truth is best, but public
data, signage or other sources could convince me) that harvesting of wood is
allowed in those specific areas where there is exactly this sort of tree cover.
Although, I might evolve further still to be convinced to use a landcover tag
(instead) if/as this becomes better developed. The landcover tag becoming more
clearly rendered would likely help here.
> That something is within a national forest boundary does not guarantee that
> it is a managed forest, or even that it has tree cover. A 'national forest'
> is more an administrative boundary to me than anything - it designates an
> area with active federal management and a stricter set of laws involving
> development, etc. Half of Reno, NV where I reside is technically inside the
> Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest boundary, including the urban center. There
> is certainly nothing that qualifies as a 'forest' here in the traditional
> sense. Even many parcels just outside of urbanized areas of Reno that are
> both within the national forest boundary and owned by the forest service have
> no tree cover whatsoever, and couldn't possibly qualify for any definition of
> a forest involving trees.
>
> Personally I think the problem here is a poor definition of 'landuse=forest’.
I don’t think it is poor at all: I think the definition of landuse=forest is
clear: "timberland” in a single word, an area where present or near-future
harvesting of trees/wood is taking place. What muddied the waters is whether
or not this should apply to a US National Forest. I believe it is NOW widely
accepted that we should not do that on a USFS administrative boundary (instead
using boundary=protected_area, protect_class=6).
OSM evolved. From its earlier days of using the landuse=forest tag to mark the
boundary of a US National Forest, we evolved to say “no, plenty of national
forests are covered by scrub, rocks, no trees whatsoever, craggy mountains or
just bare ground, so landuse=forest around the whole thing just isn’t correct.”
Yes, the landcover tag was also discussed as an alternative, but this remains
less clear than the boundary=protected_area solution that has emerged, and
which has solid consensus upholding it.
> Does this mean land used for timber production? I see a lot of on-the-ground
> verifiability issues with that sort of definition. Should it imply a large,
> managed area of trees? As explained earlier, there are many federally owned
> and managed 'national forest' areas with no tree cover whatsoever. I would be
> partial to a definition of 'land owned directly managed by a forestry
> service' - forestry land - but then mapping something like that would require
> parcel-level imports since not every piece of land owned by the forest
> service is clearly marked on the ground.
Yes, ground-truth verifiability is a strong tenet of OSM. Then, there is “what
you know and can otherwise show” or “what simply is true.” For example, near
here is the Soquel State Demonstration Forest. 100% of it is landuse=forest,
and correctly so. It isn’t just that the word “Forest” is in its name, it is
demonstrably a forest (timber production area) that the state of California
declares as such (and is mighty proud of due to its environmental and
cutting-edge forestry practices). THAT is something deserving of the tag
landuse=forest, no question about it. And while it is in public ownership,
there are also vast tracts of land near here known as “Big Creek Forests” which
are private timberland. They are also huge areas covered with trees, but
because of outstanding (private, this time) stewardship, the logging which
takes place upon them is quite light indeed: you may never see a stump or hear
a chainsaw as you attempt to ground-truth these facts. That doesn’t make them
“not a forest,” they are. Trees grow rather slowly, remember, not being ready
for harvest after decades or even centuries.
> I personally only use 'natural=wood' anymore, since at the very least it is
> easy to verify that trees exist. I don't care much for the 'original growth'
> definition of 'natural=tree' either due to verifiability issues. Much of the
> Lake Tahoe is second-growth forest, but without a forestry degree I don't see
> the average mapper being able to tell where second-growth starts and stops.
Yes, natural=wood is an important tag, as it really is distinct from
landuse=forest: the latter will have (or does have) trees being felled, the
former simply will not. OK, OK, maybe a natural=wood had trees felled “a long
time ago” and so is second-growth (or third-growth). I think OSM can live with
that. As long as the intention is for these trees to remain (uncut), and the
entirety of the area (closed polygon) is essentially “treed,” I believe
natural=wood is the correct tag. I don’t need to have a degree in forestry
(nor should I) to determine whether to tag natural=wood or landuse=forest.
Start with the former, and if you or someone else learns of or knows it to be
timberland, change it to the latter. I think that can suffice in 98% of the
cases, and the other 2% can “be handled” as needed.
SteveA
California
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
