On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Tyler<[email protected]> wrote:
> eh... I'm less fond of this, just because I'm not sold on there being 1 and > only 1 land use for an area but I have no supporting evidence to back up my > iffy feeling Many areas-with-trees in the UK are used for both forestry and mountain biking. And I mean that the owners of the land (the "Forestry Commission") build and maintain mountain biking and other recreational facilities among the trees; such facilities are rudely interrupted every few decades when the trees need a bit of a makeover. So we have (at least) three orthogonal properties a) Are there trees, swamp, mud or rocks on the ground (land cover) b) Is the area used for forestry, recreation or military training (land use) c) Is the area administered or designated or named as a "National Forest" "State Park" "National Park" "World Heritage Site" or some other such designation (administrative) None of those imply what goes on in the other two categories. Well, that's my two cents. Cheers, Andy P.S. Discussions of the value in requiring the guys who make timber also being mandated to "benefit society" is an exercise left to talk-gb@ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
