<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
The USGS Gap Analysis Program (GAP) (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://gapanalysis.nbii.gov">http://gapanalysis.nbii.gov</a>) has
some of the best datasets available for parks that play some part in
conservation, ball fields and the like usually won't be included in the
datasets. A GAP analysis has been completed for all states and several
regional updates have also been completed. As part of this project a
stewardship or conservation lands database would have been created.
These lands will include federal (including military bases), state,
local, and private lands that have some sort of designated conservation
status and typically utilize the best datasets available at the time.
Most states were completed in the 2000's, so they should be pretty
current. you'd be surprised how often boundaries for these lands
change. Hawaii's stewardship database was updated in 2005 and may be
the way to go for the park boundaries. I'll take a look and see if
it's decent. <br>
<br>
As for the quality question.... it is really about scale and
precision. generally look for a scale of 1:24,000 or larger. check
out the metadata for this info. anything smaller than 1:100,000 will
probably be too coarse for osm purposes. to check precision, Tyler has
the right idea... you can see inholdings from the aerial photography
and boundaries typically follow streams and roads.<br>
<br>
Kevin<br>
<br>
Disclaimer: I worked on the Georgia GAP and the Southeastern GAP
projects, so I might be a little biased :)<br>
<br>
Tyler wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:d4589d550912071720h4536852fq6f35fabd755d17d5@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div class="im">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I did a quick web search and found that the US National Park
Service maintains a website with a large collection of GIS data,
including park boundaries and campgrounds:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nps.gov/gis/data_info/park_gisdata/hi.htm"
target="_blank">http://www.nps.gov/gis/data_info/park_gisdata/hi.htm</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>How do people go about evaluating the quality of data that
is
being considered for import? �I'm not sure there is a better source for
US National Park boundaries than the NPS itself. �It's not like it's
possible to survey the boundaries by observations on the ground. �The
only way I was able to even determine that the previous import was
problematic is that places I knew to be just inside the park boundaries
appeared just outside the imported park boundaries.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
this data isn't much better either. It may be good for some parks. if
you can verify the data is good then import.
<div class="im"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse;"></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sometimes the USFS has better NPS boundaries than the NPS (I
don't even try to figure it out). Also, a cursory look on the wiki page
for potential data sources would have brought up both the NPS and USFS
data sources�<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potential_Datasources#US_Forest_Service">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potential_Datasources#US_Forest_Service</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I've only kind of looked at the HI state data, but there may be
some stuff in there (the large landowners and reserve maps both look
pretty coarse, though)</div>
<div>�</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div class="im"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse;">I
don't mean to belabor the point, but how do people typically evaluate
the quality of data that is essentially nothing more than imaginary
lines on a map?</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>�</div>
<div>Sometimes it's easy if you know the area. "Hey, I know the park
doesn't actually include all of those houses, because they're not
inholdings" Sometimes the boundaries are "to the thalweg of Big River"
and when you see that for Big River they have what looks like a "Z"
rather than an intricate meandering river, you know they're not great
(same goes for roads, shorelines and such). The best data for any
particular boundary tends to be from the county�(in WA state)�or
property taxing authority because they greatly care who owns what, and
where so they know how much to charge in the way of taxes. Since the
state and federal government don't pay property taxes the
inter-state/federal boundaries aren't necessarily great, but the
federal/state to private landowner boundaries are fantastic. If you
really have a question, hunting down a parcel map may be the way to go.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>