[Imports] import of protected areas ("Naturschutzgebiete") in Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:35 AM Sebastian Rauner <srauner at gmx.net> wrote:

> I noticed that the protected areas ("Naturschutzgebiete") in
> Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany are not up-to-date or missing completely. The plan
> is to execute this import which apparently was never implemented:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Sachsen-Anhalt_Naturschutzgebiete
>
> To this end, I got in contact with the environmental agency of
> Sachsen-Anhalt which send the current shape files (status end of 2019). The
> original licience is not compartible but there is the stated consent with
> the import in OSM:
> https://github.com/tilmanb/ST-NSG-import/tree/master/permission-doc
>
> The plan is to check which Naturschutzgebiete are alredy implemented and
> only import missing ones, this will be a semi automatic process. I tested
> this on this example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/101520168#map=13/51.8572/12.2503
>
>

I've curated a couple of similar imports:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NYS_DEC_Lands and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import:_NYCDEP_Watershed_Recreation_Areas
. Your plan looks reasonably sound to me; let me know if I can help!

Are the Kernzonen strict reserach reserves without public access?  If so,
having an inner area with protect_class=1a would be appropriate.  Even if
they aren't, do you possibly want to consider having a protected area with
a different protection_title for the core zones?

I see that the proposal calls out Jemmeritzer Moor as a conflation
problem.  Looking at it in OSM, I'm not seeing an obvious problem, unless
you're talking about the tiny overlap with an administrative boundary at
the southern end.  There's no particular reason that the landcover has to
follow the cadastre.  If you look at
https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=42.2066&lo=-74.6994&z=15
(sorry for directing you off OSM; the landcover isn't in OSM), you'll see
that the watershed units, all of which are nature reserves open to public
recreation, have a variety of landcover. They're class-6 as opposed to
class-4; sometimes timber is harvested or tracts are leased as pastureland,
which are uses that are compatible with the primary goal of maintaining
water quality in the streams and with the secondary objective of public
recreational access.  In the handful of places where I've added
landcover to the map of a protected area, z. B.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6373784, I've made absolutely no
effort to have the landcover polygons follow the boundaries; the trees,
marshes, rocks, meadows and beaver ponds don't follow them!



-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20210323/4761b5a8/attachment.htm>