<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    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.<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/1/20 7:05 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALREZe8c8Adshd4bdsSJ-6BYPBmxRdQ0WVa96VWQSkmuUG2Hbw@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div dir="ltr">On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:52 AM Bradley White
          <<a href="mailto:theangrytomato@gmail.com"
            moz-do-not-send="true">theangrytomato@gmail.com</a>>
          wrote:<br>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
            0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
            rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
            <div dir="auto">
              <div>
                <div class="gmail_quote">
                  <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
                    0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                    rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> If you drive
                    into a checkerboard<br>
                    area of private/public land, there are no Forest
                    Service signs at the<br>
                    limits of private land.<br>
                  </blockquote>
                </div>
              </div>
              <div dir="auto"><br>
              </div>
              <div dir="auto">In my neck of the woods, USFS owned land
                is signed fairly frequently with small yellow property
                markers at the boundaries.</div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>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 <a
href="https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gwj/specialplaces/?cid=stelprdb5276999"
              moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gwj/specialplaces/?cid=stelprdb5276999</a> indicating
            that the boundaries are indeed marked, and how they are
            marked. </div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>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.</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
            0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
            rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span
style="background-color:rgb(255,253,238);color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.24px">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.</span></blockquote>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>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. </div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>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.</div>
          <div>-- <br>
          </div>
        </div>
        <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin</div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>