I could use help, changing all the tags is easy enough but I just took a closer look at the overlapping areas and it's pretty complex. First, large areas of the Gilchrist and Deschutes overlap, then the borders should probably be fixed up so the nodes align to ways or other nodes (that's easy enough too) I feel like the newer changeset achieved most of this, but I hadn't looked at the areas of overlap close enough. I'd also have to properly figure out all the inner and outer relationships.

I'm going to visit the USFS shapefile site and see if there's better information there on the overlaps, but it's almost to the point for me where it might be easier to delete the Gilchrist completely as it's better to have correct data than incorrect data.

I don't know if you have the ability to make the newer changeset live again but that might be a start then I can manually adjust the borders based on the USFS shapefiles

I saw that just now in JOSM, I was obviously editing on the web application. When you look at it on the web application it indeed looks backwards whether there is a backwards or not.

The border on the portion of the Winema National Forest in this region osm.org/edit?#map=16/43.0869/-121.8861 appears to be backwards, it shows landuse forest on the basemap but when editing, the border is on the land around the forest. I reverted to make sure it wasn't something I had done to cause that. I'll fix up the tags when I get a chance. Or I might delete the whole thing, it's a bit complicated for me with all the overlapping multipolygons.

I could use some help tagging and making sure this and some other recent imports are correct.

Mistake, fixed I believe.

Yeah, well I'm not totally sure what the deal is with landuse vs ownership boundaries. I've been trying to figure that one out for a few years now. Many of these multipolygons are assembled incorrectly (including some of mine) and I'm not competent enough to figure out how to fix them yet.

I did revert it. You'll see lots of checkerboard patterns in our national forests now, it's just something that we'll have to get used to.

When I look at Weyerhauser recreation land maps and the most current USDA maps, I see the boundaries have changed to the checkerboard version. There are still some current maps on the USDA website that don't have the checkerboard so that's a bit of a conundrum. I was working in the area and was given a map that had the checkerboard on it but no longer have access to that map nor the people who gave it to me. Since the changeset is available to revert to at any time, I'm going to do a bit more digging and comment back here when I get better information, but it seems the checkerboard is correct.

This is a better link to the changes https://osmlab.github.io/changeset-map/#38689421

Thanks, I finally tracked down the changeset and messaged the author. I saw your changes didn't really affect what I was looking at, but i couldn't track down the other person, it was proving difficult. Sorry to bug you.

I believe that this is the changeset I've been looking for. The changes I believe you made to the boundaries are now incorrect and need to be reverted to the changes I made at least a year ago. The block on the left is owned by Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and the borders need to be redrawn to the ones available at the link below which you will recognize as the USFS website
http://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?dsetCategory=boundaries

You can view them online here if that's easier http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapps.fs.fed.us%2Farcx%2Frest%2Fservices%2FEDW%2FEDW_ForestSystemBoundaries_01%2FMapServer&source=sd

And you can view the changeset here: http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=38689421

I can try to revert to the proper dataset if you don't have that ability. Please let me know.

Sorry to bug you, but I'm having trouble tracking down what happened to some edits I made here. The boundary is completely incorrect now and this block is owned by Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, not GPNF. This is the only edit I can find as the change was apparently made a bit ago. I redrew the boundary more than a year ago based on the latest GIS data from the USFS and it's almost a complete checkerboard here now, not this large block. Since I work in the area I'd like to have the boundaries correct. Can you help me out here?

It's reverted. Thanks will be more careful in the future and save more frequently with more descriptive comments.

I just looked close, no way to do that, it was a big changeset, I'll revert it and do it all over again.

It was a mistake, I was only aligning and adding trails and roads. I must have gotten to aggressive with the shift-select. Do you know how to revert that without undoing the whole change set?

The Gifford-Pinchot is all landuse:forest as are a lot of other national forests that I've just looked at (not documenting at the moment) which just makes me wonder what the proper thing to do is. There are bodies of water and waterways covered in landuse:forest trees as well as natural:wood all over the place. Does someone need to subtract the areas out from where the water features exist?

Change it back then please, I'm mobile. Maybe have a look at the other PNW national forests as I know at least one has the same tags.

Actually, I can't find the tags on all of those other forests that I checked, maybe my memory failed me, but I was looking at the overall map wondering why some things had changed background color since I last looked. Anyway, GPNF has them and other ones do, but there is certainly a consistency issue with national forests.

I'm not challenging your assertion, I'm more questioning the decisions that OSM has made for defining forests.

I'm not sure what is meant by 50% forested. Are we talking ground cover visible in aerial photos or something else? There are clearcuts that will eventually be forested and alpine areas where there are no trees, however I'd be hard pressed to say that more than 50% of the MBSNF is alpine even in the parts north of I-90. Is it taken into account that it's being managed as a national forest?

Additionally, there are huge swaths of clearcuts in most of our state and national forest lands that are marked as forest.

My motivation was more for consistency as I looked at Olympic, Gifford-Pinchot, Mt. Hood, Willamette, and Deschutes before adding that tag.

Note: the hiking trail is accurate on 4 gpx passes and some of the aerials, Bing aerial is stretched out on the west end causing aerial and osm to not match visually.