Hey Elliot and all,
Thanks for this notice, I think it is two separate issues. One is the use of the landuse=forest tag which has been discussed many times on many lists. The other is the rendering, I think this is ‘just’ a rendering issue as you can see where ‘meadow/grass/scrub’ coloring is ‘overlaid on-top’ of the forest/green, but the tree icon stays. Of course this can be ‘mitigated’ with relations, but that’s part of why I haven’t made progress in ‘my neck of the woods’. There’s actually some great momentum in several directions with our local meetup[1] so I might try to bring this up/make an effort to ‘clean-up’ forests here. Cheers, =Russ [1] OSM-Colorado: http://www.meetup.com/OSM-Colorado/ From: Elliott Plack [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 11:03 AM To: stevea; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests Looping back to this. I was looking at the town of Breckenridge, Colorado, and the whole things is covered by trees. On some renders, it is just a big green blob over the town. Here it is: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3724941 This is not right. "landuse" implies that the *land* has a *use*, which is whatever follows the = sign. I am fine if we want to say that landuse = timber production (or whatever) in general, but to render the tag landuse=forest with little trees or a bold green color does not give the right impression to the viewer. I think we should be encouraging users to trace the forests more precisely, rather than with big blocks. Also I've noticed these Colorado imports are not being done by a user with an _import account, so it makes me wonder if these folks importing forest cover are following the import rules. These forests also have a national park tag, which they are not.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
