Nope, but it should be fixed. Thanks for pointing it out!

Hi jfire, this changeset doesn't follow the import guidelines that you listed. I took the same process having been done in the Shasta ntl. forest as precedent and didn't research the process enough. If it needs to be reverted, I should be able to step through that process when I have some free time in the next week or so. There's not a lot of editing activity in this area so there shouldn't be too much complication in reverting this set.

On a side note, I'm not sure on what grounds tagging the entire administrative boundary as landuse=forest is justified. There is a difference between "this area is subject to administration by national forest law" and "this area is actively being used for forestry purposes". I'll probably start a discussion on talk-us about this in a few days to see what peoples thoughts are.

Something broke :( Might need to revert this one...