My take: landuse = forest ---> human managed natural = wood ---> natural
I don't agree with designating USFS land as landuse=forest, unless we can agree to abort the use of landuse=forest for tagging clumps of trees. We need a best common practice here. On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:09 PM Paul Norman <[email protected]> wrote: On 11/29/2016 7:14 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: > All I know of the area is"lots of parts of it do have lots of trees", > but does the landuse=forest assignment make sense on the National > Forest boundary, or should it be on the forested areas within? I > mention this here rather because I'm sure there are people here > familiar with the area, which I'm not. The forested areas within. Or natural=wood, both get used in practice, but that's an entire different mess. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Elliott Plack http://elliottplack.me
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
