Re: [Talk-us] Green Mountain National Forest cleanup

[Adam Franco]

Thanks for those details, Kevin. The comparison is very helpful. The GMNF
seems to have only 3 classifications that I've been able to find:

   - Wilderness -- which should probably be protected_class=1b
   - National Recreation Area -- protected_class=5 (Wikipedia page
   
   notes the ICUN class)
   - everything else -- probably protected_class=6

Thanks again for the feedback!

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Adam Franco  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for another fabulously detailed reply Kevin!
>>
>> So it sounds like I'm on the right track then and it makes sense to leave
>> the broad outer boundaries as *boundary=national_park* and use the 
>> *boundary=protected_area
>> + leisure=nature_reserve* combo for the smaller US Forest Service-owned
>> parcels.
>>
>
> That's what I did when I reimported the Adirondack and Catskill data.
> There wasn't a clear consensus that the tagging was 'right' - but nobody
> really complained after the job was done.
>
> The tagging that I used is described in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/
> wiki/NYS_DEC_Lands
> In the Catskills, there was a second category of public land:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import:_NYCDEP_Watershed_
> Recreation_Areas
>
> I believe that it will be important, if anyone does get around to using
> the protected_area tagging, that protect_class and protection_object be
> something reasonable; that's something that's likely to affect the
> rendering. I'm not all that familiar with GMNF, so I don't know if there
> are a range of protection classes in it the way there are in the New York
> forests.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Green Mountain National Forest cleanup

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Jason Remillard 
wrote:

> hstore support, which would allow rendering boundary=protected_area is
> being actively worked on the main style sheet. Its coming...
>
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1504
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1975
>

I'm aware of those tickets. There are actually earlier related requests as
well, going back nearly five years. At this point I'm not holding my
breath. I'll be ecstatic if I see it actually happen, but at this point I
don't think I can plan for it.

The nice thing about the 'leisure=nature_reserve' tagging is that
correcting it can be automated easily. The 'boundary=national_park' tag
will require more manual work to reconcile, but is really the only tag we
can use for complex areas like the Adirondack Park or the GMNF without
telling worse lies to the renderer. (And, alas, it conflicts with
boundary=protected_area, so it isn't possible to tag the old and new
schemata simultaneously. boundary=national_park;protected_area will simply
cause more confusion.)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Green Mountain National Forest cleanup

[Jason Remillard]

Hi Kevin,

hstore support, which would allow rendering boundary=protected_area is
being actively worked on the main style sheet. Its coming...

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1504
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1975

Otherwise, I agree with your logic on tagging.

Jason


On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> My big issue with this is that we - alas! - need to have something "tagged
> for the renderer."
>
> Over on the other side of Lake Champlain and the Taconics, we have the
> same problem with the Catskill and Adirondack Parks, which are protected
> areas with an immense public-private partnership. (Something over half the
> Adirondack Park is owned by New York State, and the rest is quite
> restrictively administered by the Adirondack Park Agency. Its level of
> protection exceeds that of any of our National Parks.)
>
> The problem is that boundary=protected_area does not render in any of the
> map layers available from openstreetmap.org. People editing
> protected_area's cannot see their results on the server, and newcomers to
> OSM don't even know that we have them in the database.
>
> I'd say that the answer is, "fix the renderer" - and surely
> Mapnik/Carto/... can handle it, since I use that toolchain to render my own
> maps. The underlying issue is that to fix it in any of the default
> renderings (OSM default, OpenCycleMap, etc.), 'hstore' would have to be
> enabled on the server's database to get the 'protect_class' tag into the
> system. For whatever reason, the server team has balked at doing this for
> quite literally several years. I do not expect this situation to resolve in
> my lifetime,. and I have ceased to request any support for protected area
> rendering. Instead, I do most of my own rendering on maps such as
> http://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test3.html, and accept the fact that I
> will have a day or two delay in being able to retrieve any updates. (I
> don't have the resources to accept minutely updates, so I depend on the
> daily extracts at geofabrik.de. Often, I let my map fall several months
> behind, when I'm not actively mapping).
>
> Most US mappers have simply accepted that the renderer will not be fixed.
> The compromise that I used when reworking the Adirondack Park polygons was
> not well received on this list, but at least nobody reverted the changes.
> In that compromise solution:
>
> - the Adirondack and Catskill Parks as a whole were tagged
> boundary=national_park. This tagging is close to the truth except that it
> is New York State rather than a nation-state that administers it. Given the
> US principle of separate sovereignty, I'm willing to live with this.
>
> - the individual state (and in the case of the Catskills, New York City)
> owned parcels received the additional tagging of 'leisure=nature_reserve'
> plus appropriate 'protected_area' tagging. That way, they are correct in
> the new scheme and still render plausibly. 'Nature reserves' encompass many
> different things, so I wasn't too uncomfortable with this tagging.
>
> - I seriously attempted to make appropriate choices for 'protect_class'
> and related tags. This sometimes meant up-classifying relative to the IUCN
> database. IUCN wants to classify the Adirondack and Catskill holdings no
> higher than protect_class=6, because they don't enjoy national-level
> protection. That's again a failure to understand the US legal system; the
> State-level protection that they enjoy is far stronger than any Federal
> protection: these two parks are read into the state constitution. I was
> entirely comfortable giving the High Peaks or West Canada Lake wilderness
> areas protect_class=1b. They are indeed protected wilderness, where Man is
> a visitor who does not remain.
>
> The result of the compromise is, as you can see:
>
> - everything renders on the main page. The parks are at least visible.
> (There has been at least one round with the National Forests that rendered
> them entirely invisible.)
>
> - the 'landuse=forest' tag is not abused. There is no green infill on
> tracts that are not forested. The system still presumes that
> 'landuse=forest' means 'every square metre covered by trees - and cannot
> cope with the idea of 'the landowner's intent is to use the tract for
> forestry, but this particular bit, this year, is occupied by beavers' -
> according to the OSM purists, that's no longer 'forest'. (For this reason,
> I find 'landuse=forest' to be nearly useless: all the 'forest' tracts that
> I've ever mapped have transient or permanent phenomena meaning that
> individual pieces may be clearcut, bare rock, or open water at a particular
> time.)
>
> - the 'leisure=nature_reserve' tag is only slightly abused. A wilderness
> area, a wildlife management region, or a protected watershed (all of which
> permit recreational use) are all reserved to nature, and no US English
> speaker would be astonished at the tagging. I refuse to fi

Re: [Talk-us] Green Mountain National Forest cleanup

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Adam Franco  wrote:

> Thanks for another fabulously detailed reply Kevin!
>
> So it sounds like I'm on the right track then and it makes sense to leave
> the broad outer boundaries as *boundary=national_park* and use the 
> *boundary=protected_area
> + leisure=nature_reserve* combo for the smaller US Forest Service-owned
> parcels.
>

That's what I did when I reimported the Adirondack and Catskill data. There
wasn't a clear consensus that the tagging was 'right' - but nobody really
complained after the job was done.

The tagging that I used is described in
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NYS_DEC_Lands
In the Catskills, there was a second category of public land:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import:_NYCDEP_Watershed_Recreation_Areas

I believe that it will be important, if anyone does get around to using the
protected_area tagging, that protect_class and protection_object be
something reasonable; that's something that's likely to affect the
rendering. I'm not all that familiar with GMNF, so I don't know if there
are a range of protection classes in it the way there are in the New York
forests.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Green Mountain National Forest cleanup

[Adam Franco]

Thanks for another fabulously detailed reply Kevin!

So it sounds like I'm on the right track then and it makes sense to leave
the broad outer boundaries as *boundary=national_park* and use the
*boundary=protected_area
+ leisure=nature_reserve* combo for the smaller US Forest Service-owned
parcels.

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> My big issue with this is that we - alas! - need to have something "tagged
> for the renderer."
>
> Over on the other side of Lake Champlain and the Taconics, we have the
> same problem with the Catskill and Adirondack Parks, which are protected
> areas with an immense public-private partnership. (Something over half the
> Adirondack Park is owned by New York State, and the rest is quite
> restrictively administered by the Adirondack Park Agency. Its level of
> protection exceeds that of any of our National Parks.)
>
> The problem is that boundary=protected_area does not render in any of the
> map layers available from openstreetmap.org. People editing
> protected_area's cannot see their results on the server, and newcomers to
> OSM don't even know that we have them in the database.
>
> I'd say that the answer is, "fix the renderer" - and surely
> Mapnik/Carto/... can handle it, since I use that toolchain to render my own
> maps. The underlying issue is that to fix it in any of the default
> renderings (OSM default, OpenCycleMap, etc.), 'hstore' would have to be
> enabled on the server's database to get the 'protect_class' tag into the
> system. For whatever reason, the server team has balked at doing this for
> quite literally several years. I do not expect this situation to resolve in
> my lifetime,. and I have ceased to request any support for protected area
> rendering. Instead, I do most of my own rendering on maps such as
> http://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test3.html, and accept the fact that I
> will have a day or two delay in being able to retrieve any updates. (I
> don't have the resources to accept minutely updates, so I depend on the
> daily extracts at geofabrik.de. Often, I let my map fall several months
> behind, when I'm not actively mapping).
>
> Most US mappers have simply accepted that the renderer will not be fixed.
> The compromise that I used when reworking the Adirondack Park polygons was
> not well received on this list, but at least nobody reverted the changes.
> In that compromise solution:
>
> - the Adirondack and Catskill Parks as a whole were tagged
> boundary=national_park. This tagging is close to the truth except that it
> is New York State rather than a nation-state that administers it. Given the
> US principle of separate sovereignty, I'm willing to live with this.
>
> - the individual state (and in the case of the Catskills, New York City)
> owned parcels received the additional tagging of 'leisure=nature_reserve'
> plus appropriate 'protected_area' tagging. That way, they are correct in
> the new scheme and still render plausibly. 'Nature reserves' encompass many
> different things, so I wasn't too uncomfortable with this tagging.
>
> - I seriously attempted to make appropriate choices for 'protect_class'
> and related tags. This sometimes meant up-classifying relative to the IUCN
> database. IUCN wants to classify the Adirondack and Catskill holdings no
> higher than protect_class=6, because they don't enjoy national-level
> protection. That's again a failure to understand the US legal system; the
> State-level protection that they enjoy is far stronger than any Federal
> protection: these two parks are read into the state constitution. I was
> entirely comfortable giving the High Peaks or West Canada Lake wilderness
> areas protect_class=1b. They are indeed protected wilderness, where Man is
> a visitor who does not remain.
>
> The result of the compromise is, as you can see:
>
> - everything renders on the main page. The parks are at least visible.
> (There has been at least one round with the National Forests that rendered
> them entirely invisible.)
>
> - the 'landuse=forest' tag is not abused. There is no green infill on
> tracts that are not forested. The system still presumes that
> 'landuse=forest' means 'every square metre covered by trees - and cannot
> cope with the idea of 'the landowner's intent is to use the tract for
> forestry, but this particular bit, this year, is occupied by beavers' -
> according to the OSM purists, that's no longer 'forest'. (For this reason,
> I find 'landuse=forest' to be nearly useless: all the 'forest' tracts that
> I've ever mapped have transient or permanent phenomena meaning that
> individual pieces may be clearcut, bare rock, or open water at a particular
> time.)
>
> - the 'leisure=nature_reserve' tag is only slightly abused. A wilderness
> area, a wildlife management region, or a protected watershed (all of which
> permit recreational use) are all reserved to nature, and no US English
> speaker would be astonished at the tagging. I refuse to fight with the
> purists on th

Re: [Talk-us] Green Mountain National Forest cleanup

[Kevin Kenny]

My big issue with this is that we - alas! - need to have something "tagged
for the renderer."

Over on the other side of Lake Champlain and the Taconics, we have the same
problem with the Catskill and Adirondack Parks, which are protected areas
with an immense public-private partnership. (Something over half the
Adirondack Park is owned by New York State, and the rest is quite
restrictively administered by the Adirondack Park Agency. Its level of
protection exceeds that of any of our National Parks.)

The problem is that boundary=protected_area does not render in any of the
map layers available from openstreetmap.org. People editing
protected_area's cannot see their results on the server, and newcomers to
OSM don't even know that we have them in the database.

I'd say that the answer is, "fix the renderer" - and surely
Mapnik/Carto/... can handle it, since I use that toolchain to render my own
maps. The underlying issue is that to fix it in any of the default
renderings (OSM default, OpenCycleMap, etc.), 'hstore' would have to be
enabled on the server's database to get the 'protect_class' tag into the
system. For whatever reason, the server team has balked at doing this for
quite literally several years. I do not expect this situation to resolve in
my lifetime,. and I have ceased to request any support for protected area
rendering. Instead, I do most of my own rendering on maps such as
http://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test3.html, and accept the fact that I
will have a day or two delay in being able to retrieve any updates. (I
don't have the resources to accept minutely updates, so I depend on the
daily extracts at geofabrik.de. Often, I let my map fall several months
behind, when I'm not actively mapping).

Most US mappers have simply accepted that the renderer will not be fixed.
The compromise that I used when reworking the Adirondack Park polygons was
not well received on this list, but at least nobody reverted the changes.
In that compromise solution:

- the Adirondack and Catskill Parks as a whole were tagged
boundary=national_park. This tagging is close to the truth except that it
is New York State rather than a nation-state that administers it. Given the
US principle of separate sovereignty, I'm willing to live with this.

- the individual state (and in the case of the Catskills, New York City)
owned parcels received the additional tagging of 'leisure=nature_reserve'
plus appropriate 'protected_area' tagging. That way, they are correct in
the new scheme and still render plausibly. 'Nature reserves' encompass many
different things, so I wasn't too uncomfortable with this tagging.

- I seriously attempted to make appropriate choices for 'protect_class' and
related tags. This sometimes meant up-classifying relative to the IUCN
database. IUCN wants to classify the Adirondack and Catskill holdings no
higher than protect_class=6, because they don't enjoy national-level
protection. That's again a failure to understand the US legal system; the
State-level protection that they enjoy is far stronger than any Federal
protection: these two parks are read into the state constitution. I was
entirely comfortable giving the High Peaks or West Canada Lake wilderness
areas protect_class=1b. They are indeed protected wilderness, where Man is
a visitor who does not remain.

The result of the compromise is, as you can see:

- everything renders on the main page. The parks are at least visible.
(There has been at least one round with the National Forests that rendered
them entirely invisible.)

- the 'landuse=forest' tag is not abused. There is no green infill on
tracts that are not forested. The system still presumes that
'landuse=forest' means 'every square metre covered by trees - and cannot
cope with the idea of 'the landowner's intent is to use the tract for
forestry, but this particular bit, this year, is occupied by beavers' -
according to the OSM purists, that's no longer 'forest'. (For this reason,
I find 'landuse=forest' to be nearly useless: all the 'forest' tracts that
I've ever mapped have transient or permanent phenomena meaning that
individual pieces may be clearcut, bare rock, or open water at a particular
time.)

- the 'leisure=nature_reserve' tag is only slightly abused. A wilderness
area, a wildlife management region, or a protected watershed (all of which
permit recreational use) are all reserved to nature, and no US English
speaker would be astonished at the tagging. I refuse to fight with the
purists on this issue. There is no other suitable tag available that will
ever be rendered on the main map.

- the 'boundary=national_park' tag is abused on very few polygons, and can
be reverted if and when there is ever a rendering of the protected_area
status. I am not optimistic that this will occur.

This issue has been discussed here many times before. The result is an
impasse. This is one of the issues where nobody has been able to span the
"US-European divide." I do not expect it ever to be resolved, s

[Talk-us] Green Mountain National Forest cleanup

[Adam Franco]

Hello all,

I'm planning to do some cleanup of the Green Mountain National Forest in
Vermont and figured it might be useful to provide the opportunity for
feedback before embarking on this project.

The Green Mountain National forest is currently mapped as two large
outer-area relations that include large swaths of private land and many
ways and relations that mark independent parcel boundaries -- the latter
having a multitude of tag schemes.

Outer area boundaries:

   - northern section: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2030450
   - southern section: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1610349

Many parcel boundaries (examples):

   - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6850907#map=13/44.0444/-73.0668
   - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6631735#map=12/44.0070/-72.9569
   - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116060714#map=12/44.0123/-72.9418
   - 

There is very little consistency in the tagging of the parcel boundaries --
many are tagged as boundary=national_park, others are tagged as
boundary=protected_area. As well, many [most?] are tagged with
landuse=forest even if they are sensitive areas (protected watersheds),
wilderness areas (no logging allowed ever), designated recreation areas, or
otherwise not open to logging.

I propose to group all of the parcel boundaries into two super-relations,
one for the northern half of the GMNF and one for the souther half of the
GMNF. These super-relations would have:

   - type =boundary
   
   - boundary =
   protected_area
   
   - protect_class =6
   - protection_title
   =National
   Forest
   - protected 
   =perpetuity
   - operator =United
   States Forest Service

   - leisure=nature_reserve (this seemed to be recommended in the
"Okanogan-Wenatchee
   National Forest (landuse=forest and US National forests again)
   "
   discussion a few months ago)

as described on US Forest Service Data wiki page
.


The members of this super-relations would have their own tags either
normalized to the same values above the super-relation (maintaining
additional parcel-specific details) or would have their duplicative tags
removed. In particular, the boundary=national_park tag would be be
normalized to boundary=protected_area and the landuse=forest tag would
generally be removed.

I'm planning to do all of this cleanup manually sometime soon and just
wondered if anyone had any further suggestions. I guess an alternative
process would be to reimport the parcel boundaries from the latest "Survey
Boundaries maintained by the US Forest Service
" file, but I'm not sure
if that might be more difficult or easier.

Thanks for any input!
Adam

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Adam%20Franco
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us