On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:18 PM Mike Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
> The common meaning of "forest" is "a large tract of land covered with > trees and underbrush; woodland"[1] However, many parts of US National > Forests do not have trees, and either will never have trees, or will not > have them for many decades, and therefore are not "forested" > * Many ski resorts are within National Forests, e.g. [3]. Areas occupied > by buildings, parking lots and most ski runs do not have trees and are not > likely to for many years. > * Areas above treeline do not have trees and will probably not have trees > for centuries. > * Meadows, prairies, lakes/reservoirs, areas of scree and mines[4] are all > found within National Forests and no or few trees will exist in these areas > > Therefore significant parts of National Forests are not being "used" as a > "forest" and tagging them as "landuse=forest" is not appropriate in my > opinion. > +1 boundary=protected_area is more appropriate. Modoc National Forest has large swaths of land (compare [1] and [2]) that is not covered by trees, managed or not. Tagging the whole area as "landuse=forest" doesn't reflect what's actually on the ground. I agree with an earlier poster (apologies, I forgot who) who suggested replacing landuse=forest with landuse=timber. "timber" has a more unambiguous meaning than "forest" [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/41.8233/-121.0963 [2] http://binged.it/1NCIf0Q
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
