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.