Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest

[Doug Hembry]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 7:34 PM brad  wrote:


I'm with Kevin, SteveA, etc,  here.   In the part of the world that I
live, a map without national forest & BLM boundaries is very incomplete.
A useful OSM needs this.   The useful boundary would be the actual
ownership boundary, not the outer potential ownership boundary.   Messy, I
know.


+1
In fact, true for all protected areas.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 7:34 PM brad  wrote:

> I'm with Kevin, SteveA, etc,  here.   In the part of the world that I
> live, a map without national forest & BLM boundaries is very incomplete.
> A useful OSM needs this.   The useful boundary would be the actual
> ownership boundary, not the outer potential ownership boundary.   Messy, I
> know.
>
+1
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest

[brad]

I'm with Kevin, SteveA, etc,  here.   In the part of the world that I 
live, a map without national forest & BLM boundaries is very 
incomplete.   A useful OSM needs this.   The useful boundary would be 
the actual ownership boundary, not the outer potential ownership 
boundary.   Messy, I know.


On 9/1/20 7:05 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:52 AM Bradley White 
mailto:theangrytom...@gmail.com>> wrote:


 If you drive into a checkerboard
area of private/public land, there are no Forest Service signs
at the
limits of private land.


In my neck of the woods, USFS owned land is signed fairly
frequently with small yellow property markers at the boundaries.


In repeated discussions about the large government-owned 
mixed-public-use land areas in the US, people have argued repeatedly 
that the boundaries are unverifiable.  We've shown references like 
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gwj/specialplaces/?cid=stelprdb5276999 indicating 
that the boundaries are indeed marked, and how they are marked.


Note that that reference distinguishes the proclaimed boundary - the 
large region in which the Congress has authorized the National Forest 
to exist - from the actual forest land.


Maps commonly show proclaimed national forest boundaries. However,
all land within these boundaries is not national forest land; some
is privately owned. The user is cautioned to comply with state law
and owner's rules when entering onto private land.


This has failed to satisfy. The same individuals continue to contend, 
each time the topic comes around, that the boundaries are 
unverifiable, and to cling to that contention in the face of this 
evidence. In a previous round, one of the people actually advanced the 
argument that only each individual sign, blaze, stake or cairn is 
verifiable, and that the line that they mark is not verifiable and 
ought not to be mapped.


This behaviour convinced me long ago that there is a certain 
contingent here, almost entirely comprising people who've never set 
foot in a National Forest, who ardently wish to keep US National 
Forests and similar lands (e.g., the zoo of New York State 
public-access areas, the Pennsylvania State Game Lands, and even our 
State Parks) off the map, for reasons that don't touch on 
verifiability, but throw verifiability into the pot in an effort to 
make a stronger case.

--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

[stevea]

On Sep 1, 2020, at 2:46 PM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 'Private' vs 'public' hits near the mark, but not in the gold.  I was trying 
> to be precise when I said that the property line determines the protected 
> status and the public access constraints. A public-access nature reserve 
> operated by an NGO (such as a private conservancy or land trust - there are 
> quite a few in my part of the world) deserves the same treatment as a 
> government-run one.

Thank you for pointing out this distinction, Kevin.  It certainly exists, such 
as in abundance in New York state where you have mapped these distinctions 
extensively.

As I was talking about the specific case of National Forests (and their odd 
"dual boundary" nature), I did not mean to exclude other (e.g. NGO) kinds of 
ownership in the greater realm of mapping.  However, in the distinct case of 
National Forests, the distinction between public and private (for "smaller, 
actually owned" polygon components vs. "larger, potentially own-able without 
additional Congressional legislation" polygon components) remains true.

So while I do not "hit the gold" in all cases, but I think the public-private 
distinction (along with the pesky "Congress has authorized further acquisitions 
out to HERE" outer-outer polygon) accurately captures what we're trying to 
better understand, better map and better render in the case of National 
Forests, I happy accept your "adjustment or correction."

Nicely, I believe we are both correct!

SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:14 PM stevea  wrote:

> Here I weigh-in with what I believe to be a crucial distinction between
> "cadastral data which are privately owned" and "data which can be
> characterized as cadastral, but which are publicly owned and are often used
> for recreation, hiking and similar human activities."
>

'Private' vs 'public' hits near the mark, but not in the gold.  I was
trying to be precise when I said that the property line determines the
protected status and the public access constraints. A public-access nature
reserve operated by an NGO (such as a private conservancy or land trust -
there are quite a few in my part of the world) deserves the same treatment
as a government-run one.

What we discuss here is the particular (peculiar?) example of national
> forests in the USA, where there are effectively "two legal boundaries, one
> actual ownership, another potential ownership."


There's a nearly parallel situation in New York, where the 'potential
ownership' in the Adirondack and Catskill Parks is, in effect, the entirety
of those parks. In that case, though, the outer boundary is indeed signed,
affects zoning to a tremendous extent, and realtors will make it quite
clear that a property is in (or is not in) the park. (It's parallel to
several national parks in the UK, and I've gotten affirmation from a number
of prominent UK mappers that these two are properly
`boundary=national_park`.)

Within these two parks, there are a great many Wild Forests and Wilderness
Areas and Intensive Use Areas and New York City Watershed Recreation Areas
and a zoo of other things that are owned by one government or another.
They, too, are mapped, since they have protection status different from the
park as a whole, and since they are the public-access portions of the park.
(They account for something like half the land area - and we're talking a
pretty huge swath; the Adirondack Park has about the same land area as the
State of Massachusetts.)  Wilderness and Intensive Use Areas tend to have
fairly compact borders (in topology, not in size!) High Peaks
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6360488 and West Canada Lakes
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6360511 are the largest, and as you
can see, they have few inholdings or transportation corridors.  Wild Forest
areas (a slightly less restrictive classification) are ordinarily a lot
more diffuse, with patchworks of public and private holdings. They include
messes like Saranac Lakes https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6362702 and
Wilcox Lake https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6360587
.
While the classification of any land being added to the Forest Preserve
goes through a public notice and comment period, I'm sure that someone in
the Adirondack Park Agency has on the drawing board a sketch that says,
'any conservation land that comes into our hands in *this* area will be
added to *that* wild forest', but that's not proclaimed the way it is with
National Forests.

As diffuse as they are, these are the areas that have public access, and
`protect_class=1b` (or whatever the protection class of any given area is).
The cadastre determines the land use and protection status.

We absolutely should agree (here? now?) on which of these two (or both) we
> enter into OSM.  The current situation of data in our map is scattered
> between the two and still confused in the minds of many mappers who do or
> wish to enter these data.  Since we agree they should be entered, let's
> better discuss how we enter them "properly" (by achieving consensus) and
> watch as they render according to our hammered-out-here agreements on how
> this should and will best take place.  We really are getting closer to
> doing this, thanks to excellent discussion here.


With the two great parks of New York, we've mapped both the outer bounds -
which are consistently signed, at least on the highways - and the bounds of
the state-owned conservation land - which are also signed.  With the
National Forests, it's much less clear. Ordinarily the signage does NOT
follow the proclaimed boundary - there are no National Forest signs in the
middle of Reno - but rather are posted at the first actual Forest Service
parcel that a road encounters. The markings for the individual protected
parcels are more subtle, but they're there. Generally, the proclaimed
boundary is NOT visible in the field. (By contrast, there *are*  Adirondack
Park signs on streets  in Glens Falls/Queensbury, Corinth, Broadalbin,
Mayfield,  even in the villages)

I don't mind mapping the proclaimed areas of National Forests, but it's
hard to come up with an appropriate tag since the proclamation has so
little actual effect. The actual owned areas are definitely significant and
I do *not* want to give them up. My belief is that the conservation
easements - the intermediate category - would be nothing but clutter if
rendered on a general-purpose ma

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

[stevea]

Here I weigh-in with what I believe to be a crucial distinction between 
"cadastral data which are privately owned" and "data which can be characterized 
as cadastral, but which are publicly owned and are often used for recreation, 
hiking and similar human activities."

Joseph, many others in OSM, I and wide consensus agree that the former (private 
cadastral data, especially down to the level of individual parcels) generally 
do not belong in OSM.  I believe we also agree there are widely-acknowledged 
exceptions to this, such as when polygons tagged landuse=* denote where a farm 
is distinct from a forested area, or where residential vs. commercial vs. 
industrial areas clearly follow property lines up to an edge of "difference," 
especially as they better characterize what we might call "zoning" (of larger 
areas like "neighborhoods" or "downtown's shopping district" or "the industrial 
zone where auto parts are manufactured by numerous industrial companies on 
numerous parcels") instead of individual parcels.  If I am incorrect in any of 
my assumptions, I welcome adjustment or correction.

However, with PUBLIC "cadastral data" which define national parks, large areas 
used for human recreation (such as state parks, county parks, national forests 
and similar public lands), I don't think there is any argument whatsoever that 
OSM wishes to map these.  Yet what Joseph characterizes as "cadastral data" 
precisely define these.  Please, let's dispense with this apparent (but not 
actual) contradiction:  public lands belong in OSM denoted as such, and an 
acknowledged best method to do this is to map their boundary as the data where 
they are "owned by the public."

What we discuss here is the particular (peculiar?) example of national forests 
in the USA, where there are effectively "two legal boundaries, one actual 
ownership, another potential ownership."  We absolutely should agree (here? 
now?) on which of these two (or both) we enter into OSM.  The current situation 
of data in our map is scattered between the two and still confused in the minds 
of many mappers who do or wish to enter these data.  Since we agree they should 
be entered, let's better discuss how we enter them "properly" (by achieving 
consensus) and watch as they render according to our hammered-out-here 
agreements on how this should and will best take place.  We really are getting 
closer to doing this, thanks to excellent discussion here.

SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 9:03 AM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> On 01.09.20 14:40, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > We don't map cadastre at least partly out of respect for personal
> > privacy - something that is not at issue with government-owned land.
>
> I think I'm with Joseph here, we don't map cadastre stuff also because
> it makes no sense for us to become a copy of data that is
> authoritatively kept elsewhere. OSM's strength is that data can be
> edited by everybody based on observations. Data for which the sentence
> "if you edit this it will become wrong" is true should not be in OSM.
>

In my area, I deal with - and have imported - several 'authoritative' data
sets, and I personally do _not_ consider them all that authoritative, since
they are digitizations of descriptions of what is in the field. (Our land
title does not work by latitude and longitude; the authoritative reference
is a verbal description of the 'metes and bounds' - the physical objects in
the field that define the property line. A land surveyor must recover those
objects in order to do a formal survey of the line; generally speaking, the
surveyors choose or make marks that will last for decades or centuries, and
make redundant marks so that a line can be struck from partial recovery.)
They're quite often some distance away from reality.

I deal routinely with cases where there is public land managed by different
authorities, with shared boundaries. The boundaries very seldom align, and
occasionally are far off.

In many of these cases OSM has an opportunity to improve the government
data.  A mapper can analyze the conflict, sort out the different data
sources, perhaps visit the site in the field, and produce a result that is
more accurate than any of the government data sets. It's been pretty quiet,
but I know that there some corrections from OSM have flowed back into some
of the government data sets that I use.

A handful of particular examples:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/391486 - reconstructing a
town line by comparison of old maps from the Federal government (three
versions of the USGS topo maps), the State government (the topo maps from
the State department of transportation, wilderness boundaries from the
Department of Environmental Conservaion, tax plats from two counties, and
historic maps of the old Dutch land grants.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/42951 - clarifying the
boundary between a State Park and a military reservation - needed to warn
hikers of trespassing - which was incorrect in *all* available data sources
and needed some field work to recover.

(no diary entry) Unifying the boundaries of the West Point military
reservation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/175474 with the
surrounding lands, which include three state parks, a protected forest
belonging to an NGO, a cemetery, a golf course, and several transportation
corridors. The boundaries of all these objects had been previously on the
map from other imports and from hand-mapping - and conspicuously failed to
align. The data from the US Government were perhaps the worst of the lot -
and in fact, I got conflicting data from multiple agencies. I'm still not
100% sure of the totality of the boundary - it's a massive project - but
the very worst inconsistencies did indeed have their corners verified in
the field. (Every so often, someone, without discussion, reimports one or
another government data set on top of this hard work, and I'm grateful to
the DWG for the times that they've helped me get it sorted again.) One
thing that was particularly satisfying about this one is that Black Rock
Forest had previously been a blank spot on the map. I heard from a local
mapper who had learnt about its existence from OSM - and within a few
months after I added the boundary, he and others had filled in quite a lot
of detail within it!

(no diary entry again) I've revised the boundaries of a number of the
Wilderness and Wild Forest areas in the Adirondacks, because they clearly
were following natural features, and were misaligned to those features
(e.g., islands in the lakes).  That's gone as far as to remove one boundary
line from the Lake George Islands property because that island itself was
destroyed in a storm some years ago. (The State GIS people had simply not
got around to making the change.)

(no diary entry) OSM had, more or less correctly, the expansion of the High
Peaks Wilderness https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6360488 into the
area around the Boreas Ponds about six months before the state GIS
department released the updated data set.  I entered it by obtaining copies
of the tax plats of the former Finch Pruyn company, and hand-digitizing the
areas that had been transferred to New York State.  (I reconciled the
differences when they did; I didn't leave my interim lines in place.)



In your criticisms of imports, you often describe them as dead data. I
don't agree.  In fact, any time I've done an import, it's because I want to

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest

[Bradley White]

>Protect area and National Park boundaries were supposed to be less difficult 
>to confirm and more valid.

The NF administrative boundaries are basically impossible to verify
on-the-ground if that's the standard we are setting to demonstrate
verifiability. Typically, the only indication are the large welcoming
signs placed adjacent to major highways running through NF land, and
even then these typically aren't placed exactly on these boundaries.
For example, the administrative boundary for the Humboldt-Toiyabe NF
includes half the city of Reno, but none of this urban land is
protected at all, and there is zero on-the-ground indication of this
boundary.

> But if what we are going to start mapping in the USA is simply the federal 
> ownership of land, that's just pure cadastre data. We might as well try to 
> map all the private land parcels and keep that information accurate - but 
> both tasks are too difficult, and the data is better provided by local 
> governments directly.

I think this is a bit of a slippery slope argument. At least in
California, the NF land ownership boundaries are public record with no
copyright (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#United_States).
The boundaries of the federally-owned parcels *are* the protected
areas - you can't accurately map them without the parcel data here.
Using this data doesn't mean we have to start importing county parcel
data carte blanche.

If we shouldn't use land ownership because this relies on parcel data,
and the reason we don't use parcel data is because it is subject to
change and generally unverifiable on-the-ground, then we really
shouldn't be using NF administrative boundaries either since they are
likewise imported from easily accessed government data sources,
subject to change, and unverifiable on-the-ground.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:52 AM Bradley White 
wrote:

>  If you drive into a checkerboard
>> area of private/public land, there are no Forest Service signs at the
>> limits of private land.
>>
>
> In my neck of the woods, USFS owned land is signed fairly frequently with
> small yellow property markers at the boundaries.
>

In repeated discussions about the large government-owned mixed-public-use
land areas in the US, people have argued repeatedly that the boundaries are
unverifiable.  We've shown references like
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gwj/specialplaces/?cid=stelprdb5276999
indicating
that the boundaries are indeed marked, and how they are marked.

Note that that reference distinguishes the proclaimed boundary - the large
region in which the Congress has authorized the National Forest to exist -
from the actual forest land.

Maps commonly show proclaimed national forest boundaries. However, all land
> within these boundaries is not national forest land; some is privately
> owned. The user is cautioned to comply with state law and owner's rules
> when entering onto private land.


This has failed to satisfy. The same individuals continue to contend, each
time the topic comes around, that the boundaries are unverifiable, and to
cling to that contention in the face of this evidence. In a previous round,
one of the people actually advanced the argument that only each individual
sign, blaze, stake or cairn is verifiable, and that the line that they mark
is not verifiable and ought not to be mapped.

This behaviour convinced me long ago that there is a certain contingent
here, almost entirely comprising people who've never set foot in a National
Forest, who ardently wish to keep US National Forests and similar lands
(e.g., the zoo of New York State public-access areas, the Pennsylvania
State Game Lands, and even our State Parks) off the map, for reasons that
don't touch on verifiability, but throw verifiability into the pot in an
effort to make a stronger case.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 01.09.20 14:40, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> We don't map cadastre at least partly out of respect for personal
> privacy - something that is not at issue with government-owned land. 

I think I'm with Joseph here, we don't map cadastre stuff also because
it makes no sense for us to become a copy of data that is
authoritatively kept elsewhere. OSM's strength is that data can be
edited by everybody based on observations. Data for which the sentence
"if you edit this it will become wrong" is true should not be in OSM.

> A larger point, however, is that we _do_ map land use; we _do_ map
> protection status, and we _do_ map constraints on public access.  In
> this particular case, as with many cases of government-owned land, the
> land use, the protection status, and the public access all follow the
> property lines. That is what is (implicitly) being mapped; mapping the
> property line is the way that it is achieved. 

I am wary of this line of reasoning because it will in many cases lead
to doing exactly what I write above, making a low-quality copy of
authoritative data that is kept elsewhere.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:18 AM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> The OpenStreetMap community has long agreed that mapping cadastral parcels
> (land ownership) is not in scope. Protect area and National Park boundaries
> were supposed to be less difficult to confirm and more valid.
>
> But if what we are going to start mapping in the USA is simply the federal
> ownership of land, that's just pure cadastre data. We might as well try to
> map all the private land parcels and keep that information accurate - but
> both tasks are too difficult, and the data is better provided by local
> governments directly.
>

We don't map cadastre at least partly out of respect for personal privacy -
something that is not at issue with government-owned land.

A larger point, however, is that we _do_ map land use; we _do_ map
protection status, and we _do_ map constraints on public access.  In this
particular case, as with many cases of government-owned land, the land use,
the protection status, and the public access all follow the property lines.
That is what is (implicitly) being mapped; mapping the property line is the
way that it is achieved.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The OpenStreetMap community has long agreed that mapping cadastral parcels
(land ownership) is not in scope. Protect area and National Park boundaries
were supposed to be less difficult to confirm and more valid.

But if what we are going to start mapping in the USA is simply the federal
ownership of land, that's just pure cadastre data. We might as well try to
map all the private land parcels and keep that information accurate - but
both tasks are too difficult, and the data is better provided by local
governments directly.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 9:50 PM Bradley White 
wrote:

>  If you drive into a checkerboard
>> area of private/public land, there are no Forest Service signs at the
>> limits of private land.
>>
>
> In my neck of the woods, USFS owned land is signed fairly frequently with
> small yellow property markers at the boundaries.
>
> Privately owned land within a NF declared boundary is not under any
> protection by the USFS, therefore tagging the administrative boundary as
> 'protected_area' will lead to inaccuracies. The land areas that are
> actually protected from development/have active resource management are
> only the lands which the federal government owns within these
> administrative boundaries.
>
> I think using the administrative boundaries is a good & practical first
> approximation, but the goal should eventually to be to change over to the
> actual land owned by the Fed and operated for conservation by the USFS.
>
>>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest

[Bradley White]

>
>  If you drive into a checkerboard
> area of private/public land, there are no Forest Service signs at the
> limits of private land.
>

In my neck of the woods, USFS owned land is signed fairly frequently with
small yellow property markers at the boundaries.

Privately owned land within a NF declared boundary is not under any
protection by the USFS, therefore tagging the administrative boundary as
'protected_area' will lead to inaccuracies. The land areas that are
actually protected from development/have active resource management are
only the lands which the federal government owns within these
administrative boundaries.

I think using the administrative boundaries is a good & practical first
approximation, but the goal should eventually to be to change over to the
actual land owned by the Fed and operated for conservation by the USFS.

>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

[stevea]

Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> They're both 'legal' boundaries. 
(and more).

Thank you, Kevin.  Finally, this is written in a manner that allows me to 
understand it and I do now.  Whew!

THEN, there is how OSM might ultimately remedy this (by specifying — good 
example wiki diagrams can go miles here — mapping the "simple outer" with an 
"outer" role?) and how Carto (and its authors) remedy this as it renders.  
These remain to be seen.  It's messy, but we do get closer talking about it 
here.  It appears there are some forests which denote "legislative outer" with 
"outer" role and other forests which denote an outer role of land which is 
ACTUALLY federally owned (a smaller area, contained wholly inside of the first 
kind, the could-be-national-forest-without-more-legislation kind).

OSM must specify correct / preferred tagging if we keep both kinds of 
multipolygons (MPs) in our data (I prefer the latter, as the tags in the 
polygon "do apply").  We may also coin a new flavor of MP (it would still BE a 
MP, but perhaps with special tagging, special rendering, or both) for such 
national forests in the USA to better characterize the "dual nature" of this 
odd "sort of" ownership:  an "outer-outer" of "legislative possibility of 
ownership."  But maybe that's not required:  a wiki page describing this and 
the tagging required on one or two MPs could do it, I think.

In my mind, now that these are quite distinct, it seems a straightforward 
solution is two MPs, maybe linked somehow (one a super-relation containing the 
other?).  The first MP might be the (larger) "legislatively-defined outer-role 
possibly-owned 'limit without additional legislation.'"   The second MP might 
be the (smaller) "actually owned, tagged outer-role, plus punched-out 
inner-role inholdings."  Those quoted descriptions can be sharpened up, but I 
hope the idea is clear.

Then, maybe some logic is built into Carto (maybe not, it may not be 
necessary).  Then, we document this well in wiki (explaining as Kevin did, as I 
understand now clear-as-crystal, I believe others will, too).  Then, we discuss 
whether there might be a harmonization of data across the country.  Then (as 
usual, the final act, please pass the popcorn), we watch our hard work render.  
And applaud.

With Kevin and Joseph talking, this feels like it can get solved!

Thanks for putting on thinking caps and typing words carefully,
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

[Joseph Eisenberg]

But the Forest Service itself is showing the outer boundary on it's
websites, as I've mentioned above. On the higher resolution web map, there
is only a faint difference in lighter green / darker green color to show
which land within the official boundary is privately or federally owned,
and this distinction is not even mentioned in the map legend:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/klamath/maps-pubs/?cid=fseprd533703&width=full


And my experience is that only the outermost boundary has official signs
saying "entering Klamath National Forest". If you drive into a checkerboard
area of private/public land, there are no Forest Service signs at the
limits of private land.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 4:36 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:11 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I believe there might be an issue with these complex multipolygons which
>> is preventing osm2pgsql from handling them. Perhaps it is because nodes are
>> shared between two outer rings?
>>
>> However, I also want to note that it is not clear to me that the new
>> mapping is correct.
>>
>> The new outer boundaries for the Superior National Forest are very
>> complex and only cover a small portion of the land within the National
>> Forest outer boundary:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11558095
>>
>> Compare the official National Forest web map:
>> https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=03a17ac9df1a4cd0bcc872ac996e7231
>> - this matches the older, simpler boundary that was in OpenStreetMap
>> previously. Also see this map on the Forest website:
>> https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MEDIA/stelprdb5130373.pdf
>>
>> It appears that the new, complex relation is attempting to map what land
>> is owned by the Federal government, rather than mapping the legal boundary
>> of the National Forest. Is that correct?
>>
>> I believe this is a misinterpretation of the meaning of
>> boundary=protected_area.
>>
>
> They're both 'legal' boundaries.
>
> The simple outer boundary of a National Forest is 'the area in which the
> Forest Service is authorized to purchase land without a new Act of Congress
> expanding the forest.'  It's not signed in the field and has very little
> effect upon the actual land management. It's generally all that the
> enabling act of Congress specifies; the rest is done by having the law
> authorize the Executive Branch to determine the status of parcels within
> the legislated boundary.
>
> The outer boundary also generally excludes all 'inholdings' - private
> holdings that are enclosed by the national forest.
>
> It gives a more pleasant rendering at low zoom levels while still giving a
> sense of where the National Forest is, but does not reflect the situation
> in the field.
>
> The 'patchwork quilt' area is the area actually owned by the Federal
> Government and administered by the Forest Service. It's normally what will
> be posted in the field, and it's the area that actually enjoys the
> protection.
>
> For many Federally-administered land areas, there's also a third category:
> land on which the Federal government owns a conservation easement
> (essentially, the right to develop the land) but the land ownership (the
> right to exclude others) is private. There are huge pieces of wildlife
> refuges where Uncle Sam owns the hunting and development rights, but some
> farmer or forester owns and works the land.
>
> Most people in the general public would recognize only the most
> restrictive definition in the field, since that is what's signed. A duck
> hunter would look at an official map to see which of the private parcels
> comprising a wildlife refuge are open to the public for hunting in season.
> Very few people except the real estate lawyers care about the outermost
> boundary, except to give something that can yield a readable rendering on
> small-scale maps.
>
> I'm all for making the boundary follow the legal designation that has the
> greatest effect and is visibly signed.
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:11 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> I believe there might be an issue with these complex multipolygons which
> is preventing osm2pgsql from handling them. Perhaps it is because nodes are
> shared between two outer rings?
>
> However, I also want to note that it is not clear to me that the new
> mapping is correct.
>
> The new outer boundaries for the Superior National Forest are very complex
> and only cover a small portion of the land within the National Forest outer
> boundary:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11558095
>
> Compare the official National Forest web map:
> https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=03a17ac9df1a4cd0bcc872ac996e7231
> - this matches the older, simpler boundary that was in OpenStreetMap
> previously. Also see this map on the Forest website:
> https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MEDIA/stelprdb5130373.pdf
>
> It appears that the new, complex relation is attempting to map what land
> is owned by the Federal government, rather than mapping the legal boundary
> of the National Forest. Is that correct?
>
> I believe this is a misinterpretation of the meaning of
> boundary=protected_area.
>

They're both 'legal' boundaries.

The simple outer boundary of a National Forest is 'the area in which the
Forest Service is authorized to purchase land without a new Act of Congress
expanding the forest.'  It's not signed in the field and has very little
effect upon the actual land management. It's generally all that the
enabling act of Congress specifies; the rest is done by having the law
authorize the Executive Branch to determine the status of parcels within
the legislated boundary.

The outer boundary also generally excludes all 'inholdings' - private
holdings that are enclosed by the national forest.

It gives a more pleasant rendering at low zoom levels while still giving a
sense of where the National Forest is, but does not reflect the situation
in the field.

The 'patchwork quilt' area is the area actually owned by the Federal
Government and administered by the Forest Service. It's normally what will
be posted in the field, and it's the area that actually enjoys the
protection.

For many Federally-administered land areas, there's also a third category:
land on which the Federal government owns a conservation easement
(essentially, the right to develop the land) but the land ownership (the
right to exclude others) is private. There are huge pieces of wildlife
refuges where Uncle Sam owns the hunting and development rights, but some
farmer or forester owns and works the land.

Most people in the general public would recognize only the most restrictive
definition in the field, since that is what's signed. A duck hunter would
look at an official map to see which of the private parcels comprising a
wildlife refuge are open to the public for hunting in season. Very few
people except the real estate lawyers care about the outermost boundary,
except to give something that can yield a readable rendering on small-scale
maps.

I'm all for making the boundary follow the legal designation that has the
greatest effect and is visibly signed.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I believe there might be an issue with these complex multipolygons which is
preventing osm2pgsql from handling them. Perhaps it is because nodes are
shared between two outer rings?

However, I also want to note that it is not clear to me that the new
mapping is correct.

The new outer boundaries for the Superior National Forest are very complex
and only cover a small portion of the land within the National Forest outer
boundary:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11558095

Compare the official National Forest web map:
https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=03a17ac9df1a4cd0bcc872ac996e7231
- this matches the older, simpler boundary that was in OpenStreetMap
previously. Also see this map on the Forest website:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MEDIA/stelprdb5130373.pdf

It appears that the new, complex relation is attempting to map what land is
owned by the Federal government, rather than mapping the legal boundary of
the National Forest. Is that correct?

I believe this is a misinterpretation of the meaning of
boundary=protected_area.

See images at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/4198#issuecomment-684084296
for another example with the Manistee National Forest, which used to be
mapped in a much simpler fashion and now has been re-made as many smaller
parcels.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 4:22 PM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> Paul,
> I don't have a definitive answer for you, but rendering usually takes a
> while for large areas. I would expect it to render when zoomed in but
> wasn't able to see any rendering on a couple of spot checks. I did notice
> that around islands either the forest or the island, are shifted. I would
> recommend cleaning those up.
>
> Clifford
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 1:19 PM Paul White  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I recently added the (super complicated) Superior National Forest
>> boundary to OSM, because I noticed it was missing. However, it refuses to
>> render on the standard map, even though I ran it through JOSM's validator
>> with no problems. (link to relation)
>>  I
>> don't think it's due to the amount of members, because the Tongass National
>> Forest I added recently, with over 10,000 members, renders fine. And I know
>> it's not due to the tags on the relation; they are standard to other
>> national forests.
>>
>> If someone could look into it and see what's causing it to break, that
>> would be great.
>>
>> pj
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

[Clifford Snow]

Paul,
I don't have a definitive answer for you, but rendering usually takes a
while for large areas. I would expect it to render when zoomed in but
wasn't able to see any rendering on a couple of spot checks. I did notice
that around islands either the forest or the island, are shifted. I would
recommend cleaning those up.

Clifford

On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 1:19 PM Paul White  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I recently added the (super complicated) Superior National Forest boundary
> to OSM, because I noticed it was missing. However, it refuses to render on
> the standard map, even though I ran it through JOSM's validator with no
> problems. (link to relation)
>  I
> don't think it's due to the amount of members, because the Tongass National
> Forest I added recently, with over 10,000 members, renders fine. And I know
> it's not due to the tags on the relation; they are standard to other
> national forests.
>
> If someone could look into it and see what's causing it to break, that
> would be great.
>
> pj
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us