Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 7:36 PM stevea wrote: > Adam Franco writes: > > Here's an example: > > - Parent relation: > > - name=Xxxx National Forest > > - operator=United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service > > - ownership=national > > Ah, OK, If you really DO mean

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

Adam Franco writes: > Steve, I think that cutting wilderness/etc areas out of the NF polygon is > logically problematic as these *are* part of the NF, just with extra > restrictions. You don't leave the NF when you enter the wilderness area. > ...One significant issue with this is that > "adding

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

> > > I would imagine that the parent NF object that has the name > > "Green Mountain National Forest" would contain members that had > > protect_class=6 (resource extraction), protect_class=1b (wilderness), > > protect_class=5 (recreation areas, Appalation Trail corridor), etc. > > Again, yes.

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

Adam Franco writes (about my 1, 2, 3 post potentially defining NF MPs, now clarified that 1 isn't "all enclosing") > I think this is correct:. He continues: > If there is consensus on dropping (3), then a system for mapping NFs as > (1-2) should be possible to figure out. That said, how that

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Jun 26, 2020, at 7:31 AM, Bradley White wrote: > In most county assessor records, the name on the "title" of USFS owned > land is "United States of America", "United States Forest Service", or > some variant. The federal government owns the land, and manages the > land resource as well as US

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:31 AM Bradley White wrote: > > We were doing great there, then I think my (admonishment? might be too > strong) way of expressing "owned and operated by the USFS" is technically, > accurately stated as "owned by the People, managed / operated specifically > by the

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

> We were doing great there, then I think my (admonishment? might be too > strong) way of expressing "owned and operated by the USFS" is technically, > accurately stated as "owned by the People, managed / operated specifically by > the USFS." If you can agree with me there, I think we can get

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:40 AM stevea wrote: > A refinement, perhaps Bradley and others agree with me, perhaps not. > > A USFS NF is a "virtual" multipolygon (not one in OSM, we can get to that > later) of three kinds of things: > > 1) An "outer" (but not the biggest one) which is "the

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

A refinement, perhaps Bradley and others agree with me, perhaps not. A USFS NF is a "virtual" multipolygon (not one in OSM, we can get to that later) of three kinds of things: 1) An "outer" (but not the biggest one) which is "the enclosing land which USFS manages, except for inholdings,

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Jun 24, 2020, at 9:40 PM, Bradley White wrote: > NF congressionally designated boundary, minus private inholdings (more > specifically, non-USFS-owned land), gives you the boundary of land > that is actually managed and protected by the USFS. This boundary > should be tagged with

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

> However, I'm not exactly sure how the outer polygons found in NFs differ from > either the "Congressional" boundary or the one Bradley says he would tag > "boundary=administrative" (and I don't think we should tag it that, > especially while excluding a specific value for admin_level), but

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

I (momentarily?) recede from my "watching mode" in this thread to offer my agreement with Mike and to reiterate a slight disagreement with Bradley (or maybe to ask Bradley and especially the wider list here for clarification), as while it seems we get closer to a "more definitive" way to tag NF

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

seconded stevea -- very interesting and cogent, definitely reading these National Forest expositions best regards from Berkeley, California   --Brian M Hamlin MAPLABS ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:35 PM brad wrote: > > There are a few cases where property owners have put up illegal, or very misleading signs. I have come across this too. The signs are on private property, but face you as you are traveling on a legal FS road and looking straight ahead. It makes

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

Thank you Bradley, Mike and brad for the fascinating insights, clarifications and continuing discussion. I did not realize that this sort of boundary / ownership / administration / distinctions with private inholdings was anywhere near this complex: that "Congressional Boundary" thing I find

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

I've been struggling with this for roads.   Unfortunately on the ground survey is the best.   There are a few cases where property owners have put up illegal, or very misleading signs.  The motor vehicle use map (MVUM) is helpful, but usually not accurate outside NF boundary, but maybe good

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:08 AM Bradley White wrote: > > > Somewhat related, in the cases where an official FS road or trail crosses private property, does the FS have an easement, or is it kind of an informal arrangement? > > Best way to know for sure is ground survey, but generally USFS system

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

> Somewhat related, in the cases where an official FS road or trail crosses > private property, does the FS have an easement, or is it kind of an informal > arrangement? Best way to know for sure is ground survey, but generally USFS system roads & trails (also available for viewing using the

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:59 AM Bradley White wrote: > > > While it certainly may exist, I'm not aware of a disparity between the "congressionally declared boundary" and any other boundary of a NF, including "physical land that the NF actually owns and manages." How would anyone know where this

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

> While it certainly may exist, I'm not aware of a disparity between the > "congressionally declared boundary" and any other boundary of a NF, including > "physical land that the NF actually owns and manages." How would anyone know > where this latter boundary is? The declared boundaries are

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

>> A relation for all would be ok too, as long as the private inholdings are >> not removed from the NF (which I think has been done in some cases). > Bradley White writes > I've argued for this in the past on this mailing list, but have since > come around to disagreeing with this position over

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 10:54 PM Bradley White wrote: > > > A relation for all would be ok too, as long as the private inholdings are > > not removed from the NF (which I think has been done in some cases). > > > IMO, a tagging scheme that better represents the meaning of these two > boundaries

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

> A relation for all would be ok too, as long as the private inholdings are > not removed from the NF (which I think has been done in some cases). I've argued for this in the past on this mailing list, but have since come around to disagreeing with this position over tagging semantics. Most NF

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries (Mike Thompson)

On Jun 21, 2020, at 5:58 PM, Mike Thompson wrote: > 1) Not all "inholdings" are completely surrounded by the National Forest, > they are "bites" off the edge in some cases. I don't think one can have an > inner ring and an outer ring which are at all coincident (they can't share an > edge)

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries (Mike Thompson)

Steve, Perhaps I am not understanding what you are saying, but: 1) Not all "inholdings" are completely surrounded by the National Forest, they are "bites" off the edge in some cases. I don't think one can have an inner ring and an outer ring which are at all coincident (they can't share an

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries (Mike Thompson)

Continuing from my previous post, we even have an especially data-compact (efficient) way of representing that: the member of the forest relation which is an inholding (tagged with role inner) IS the polygon of, say, a private residence "inside of" the forest. For example (I'm making this

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries (Mike Thompson)

Mike Thompson wrote: > One polygon for the administrative boundary of the NF which was established > by Congress. > Zero or more polygons describing limitations on access (no need for polygons > to for access=yes, we can assume that in a NF generally), whether they be due > to private

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea wrote: > > A large thank-you to Kevin for that deeply informative post. > > > brad wrote: > > I think its simpler and better to just create an inner boundary as was done with the Coconino NF > > The Coconio NF (relation/10956348) hasn't "an" inner boundary,

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

A large thank-you to Kevin for that deeply informative post. > brad wrote: > I think its simpler and better to just create an inner boundary as was done > with the Coconino NF The Coconio NF (relation/10956348) hasn't "an" inner boundary, it has hundreds of them. I'm not sure I understand

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 6:31 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > > I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged with access=private and possibly ownership=private > > While many Americans like to put "no trespassing" signs on their private property, a privately owned parcel is

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

*Sorry, forgot to send this to the mailing list...* Thanks for the input. However, doesn't that violate "one feature, one OSM element" ? I believe we should stick with the inholding method, because separating national forests into

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

Three years ago I updated the tagging and relations of the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont after some discussion in the Tagging list (start

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On 6/20/20 6:19 PM, Mike Thompson wrote: On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea > wrote: > > I think we need both as well.  I've been doing this while watching the evolution of how we best do this as I participate in a "do our best, always better" efforts

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 8:33 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged with > > access=private and possibly ownership=private > > While many Americans like to put "no trespassing" signs on their private > property, a privately owned

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

I don't think we should map all ownership in OSM either, however, there is a lot of tagging in OSM right now which does tag ownership=national, ownership=state, which, for public lands owned by the federal or a state government, I have no problem with making this distinction known in OSM

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

> I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged with access=private and possibly ownership=private While many Americans like to put "no trespassing" signs on their private property, a privately owned parcel is not access=private unless there are signs on the roads and paths

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

Mike, I hadn't considered that, it distinctly deepens the discussion. Stroking my chin and saying "hm" now. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea wrote: > > I think we need both as well. I've been doing this while watching the evolution of how we best do this as I participate in a "do our best, always better" efforts to accomplish this. Even now! > > The idea of the first kind is simply a relation

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

I think we need both as well. I've been doing this while watching the evolution of how we best do this as I participate in a "do our best, always better" efforts to accomplish this. Even now! The idea of the first kind is simply a relation with a focus on the / a polygon with the outer

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 2:43 PM Paul White wrote: > > > > Which one would be better? Looking forward to feedback. I think we need both. I am open to suggestions as how to accomplish that. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org

[Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

Hello everyone, I wanted to get some opinions on how exactly National Forest boundaries should appear in OSM. Currently there are 2 ways national forest boundaries appear: 1. As simply the proclamation boundary, the original boundary authorized by Congress, like Pike National Forest

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

Chris Lawrence wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Theodore Book tbook-vggt2q2+t+feowh0uzb...@public.gmane.org wrote: Despite my taking a local approach, I do think it would be great if we could do a coordinated national upload of the NHD data, however. I think it would definitely help

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Theodore Book tb...@libero.it wrote: Despite my taking a local approach, I do think it would be great if we could do a coordinated national upload of the NHD data, however. I think it would definitely help make the US OpenStreetMap look more professional to get

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

I totally agree. National Forests are administered by the Agriculture Department (not the park service) and are managed lands for different uses (timber, livestock, wildlife) as well as recreation. They are probably closer (feel free to flame me on this) to BLM lands than National Parks.

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:34 AM, James Fee james@gmail.com wrote: I totally agree. National Forests are administered by the Agriculture Department (not the park service) and are managed lands for different uses (timber, livestock, wildlife) as well as recreation. They are probably

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:56 AM, James Fee james@gmail.com wrote: The problem is that they aren't the same. National Forests are Department of Agriculture and National Parks are Department of Interior. There is probably a smart way to tag them, but there definitely should be separation

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

I have put the various proposals on the wiki at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Service_Data It seems like the landuse=forest tag has a fair amount of consensus, but that we are not yet sure how to tag the fact that it is a national forest, and not just any forest. Adam

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Theodore Book tb...@libero.it wrote: I have put the various proposals on the wiki at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Service_Data It seems like the landuse=forest tag has a fair amount of consensus, but that we are not yet sure how to tag the

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

Karl Newman siliconfi...@gmail.com writes: On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Theodore Book tb...@libero.it wrote: I have put the various proposals on the wiki at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Service_Data It seems like the landuse=forest tag has a fair amount of consensus,

[Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

The Etowah river watershed is now completely uploaded - although even with the faster updates, Mapnik still has some catching up to do. I will wait a week or so, but if no-one sees any problems, I may upload some more Georgia watersheds. The basin is at:

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Theodore Book tb...@libero.it wrote: Despite my taking a local approach, I do think it would be great if we could do a coordinated national upload of the NHD data, however. I think it would definitely help make the US OpenStreetMap look more professional to get