On Jun 24, 2020, at 9:40 PM, Bradley White <theangrytom...@gmail.com> 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 'protect_class=6'. USFS owned land is always a > subset of this congressional boundary (I suspect it is, in all cases > in the US, a proper subset). Subtracting these private inholdings is > generally going to change the shape of the 'outer' way such that it no > longer is the same as the "designated" boundary.
That really helps; thank you! I think I still need to do some imagination exercises here, and maybe see some examples (in a JOSM buffer, in the real world...) and it will fully crystallize in my mind. And, if true, the phrase "proper subset" helps, as well. >> My slight disagreement with Bradley is as above: I don't think we should >> put a "naked" (missing admin_level) boundary=administrative tag on these, it >> simply feels wrong to do that. (I READ the point that these are >> "Congressionally designated" and that SEEMS administrative...but, hm...). > > I wasn't clear in what I meant by suggesting 'boundary=administrative' > tagging here - I don't think we should tag "declared" boundaries > 'boundary=administrative' with no 'admin_level'. This is simply the > closest widely-used tag that comes close to representing what this > "declared" boundary actually means. This is also why I suggest we > think about not including it at all in OSM; should we also start > adding boundaries for interstate USFS administrative regions (an > 'admin_level', for lack of a better term, more general than a NF > boundary), as well as ranger districts within each national forest? > > The real, on-the-ground objects of importance here are the plots of > land that are actually owned and operated by the USFS, not an > administrative boundary that declares where each national forest *may* > legally be authorized to own and manage land, and that is not > surveyable on the ground. 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 even closer. If not, that seems like a central core of the snarl in at least my understanding. There are three states we seem to be trying to capture here: 1) land Congress declares is "managed and protected" by USFS, which OSM represents with an enclosing "outer." 2) Excluded from 1) are inholdings, which have role "inner" in the multipolygon. 3) Land Bradley called "owned and operated by USFS" (but which I say is owned by the People and operated by the USFS). See, 1) and 3) seem like the same thing to me. Why would Congress say what Bradley mentions first (at the top of this post) is "managed and protected by USFS" (minus inholdings) and yet there is something "owned by USFS" (when the government owns land, the People own the land; the government agency is operator FOR the People) which I seem to confuse with 3). Am I doing that? Is Bradley? Is Congress? Is it about ownership and operator status being confused in my mind? I'm not stupid, I'm getting closer and I'm grateful for what I hope isn't confused blather. Thankful for talk-pages, thankful for the good talk that happens within them, SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
