<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Three years ago I <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45287531">updated the tagging and relations</a> of the <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2030450">Green Mountain National Forest</a> in Vermont after some discussion in the Tagging list (<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2017-January/016986.html">start</a>, <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2017-January/016994.html">after</a> some comments from Kevin). What I ended up doing is setting the outer "proclamation boundary" as <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2030450">one relation</a> tagged with <font face="monospace">boundary=national_park + boundary_type=protected_area<font face="arial,sans-serif"> + <font face="monospace">protect_class=6</font> </font></font> and the actual parcels are <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1610352">a separate relation</a> tagged with <span style="font-family:monospace">boundary=protected_area</span> + <span style="font-family:monospace">protect_class=6</span> (and <span style="font-family:monospace">leisure=nature_reserve</span> for rendering -- not sure if that is still needed). Wilderness and recreation areas within the National Forest are not members of the main parcel relation, but instead are their own ways/relations with tagging that indicates the higher level of protection in them such as <font face="monospace">protect_class=1b</font> for wilderness areas (examples: <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116060596">Joseph Battell Wilderness</a>, <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116060601">Big Branch Wilderness</a>) and <span style="font-family:monospace">protect_class=5</span> for recreation areas (example: <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1610350">Moosalamoo National Recreation Area</a>).</div><div><br></div><div>I can't say that this tagging is necessarily correct, but it has proven to be pretty useful in a few ways:<br><ol><li>The "proclamation boundary" is a big area that provides an appropriate name on low-zoom maps.</li><li>Having the parcel relation (with cut-outs for in-holdings) is super useful when exploring the forest and wanting to be aware of the potential for no-trespassing signage.</li></ol><div>I haven't looked at other National Forests in depth, but some in CO (like <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/395767">Roosevelt National Forest</a> and <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/393066">Pike National Forest</a>) are just one big relation with <font face="monospace">boundary=national_park + boundary_type=protected_area<font face="arial,sans-serif"> + <font face="monospace">protect_class=6</font> </font></font> and no separate parcel relations. If the actual outer "proclamation boundary" matches the main extent of the parcels that is probably much simpler. In the case of the Green Mountain National Forest the "proclamation boundary" almost never matches the outer edge of the parcels, but covers a much wider area -- hence mapping both.<br><br>Hope this helps!<br></div><div>Adam<br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:08 PM brad <<a href="mailto:bradhaack@fastmail.com">bradhaack@fastmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<br>
<div>On 6/20/20 6:19 PM, Mike Thompson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea
<<a href="mailto:steveaOSM@softworkers.com" target="_blank">steveaOSM@softworkers.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> 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!<br>
><br>
> The idea of the first kind is simply a relation with a
focus on the / a polygon with the outer (-most) membership.
The idea of the second kind is one of these plus a carefully
crafted inner membership, often made up of a complex inholding
distribution containing many sometimes complex themselves
inner polygons.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Thanks Steve for your insightful
comments.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">I was thinking just create separate
polygons for inholdings, tagged with access=private and
possibly ownership=private</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Mike<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
I think its simpler and better to just create an inner boundary as
was done with the Coconino NF
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>