[Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

James Fee james.fee at gmail.com
Thu Feb 19 15:56:00 GMT 2009


The problem is that they aren't the same.  National Forests are Department
of Agriculture and National Parks are Department of Interior.  There is
probably a smart way to tag them, but there definitely should be separation
between National Parks and everything else.

--
James Fee
http://www.spatiallyadjusted.com/


On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Adam Schreiber <sadam at clemson.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:34 AM, James Fee <james.fee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I totally agree.  National Forests are administered by the Agriculture
> > Department (not the park service) and are managed lands for different
> uses
> > (timber, livestock, wildlife) as well as recreation.  They are probably
> > closer (feel free to flame me on this) to BLM lands than National Parks.
> >  National Monuments are closer to National Parks than National Forests
> (or
> > Wildlife Recreation Areas) are.
> > Federally managed lands in the US are a huge PITA to peg down, but I
> > wouldn't call National Forests "preserves" or "national parks".  Wildlife
> > Recreation Areas and National Monuments are closer, but even they are not
> > National Parks (National Monuments are administered by many different
> > agencies, even BLM, making it even more difficult).
>
> Perhaps instead a administrative boundary level needs to be assigned.
> In essence, the administrative level for national parks and forests is
> the same, but what's contained is different.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adam
>
> > --
> > James Fee
> > http://www.spatiallyadjusted.com/
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Karl Newman <siliconfiend at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Nicholas Vetrovec <
> nickvet419 at yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Theodore Book <tbook at libero.it>
> wrote:
> >>> >> Despite my taking a "local" approach, I do think it would be great
> if
> >>> >> we
> >>> >> could do a coordinated national upload of the NHD data, however.
> >>>
> >>> >I think it would definitely help make the US OpenStreetMap look more
> >>> >professional to get as much of the NHD data in as possible.
> >>>
> >>> >> I am also looking at the GIS data from the Chattahoochee-Oconee
> >>> >> National
> >>> >> Forests, and was wondering if we had come to a consensus on National
> >>> >> Forest boundaries - should they simply be tagged "landuse=forest",
> or
> >>> >> is
> >>> >> some other tag ("natural=wood", or "boundary=national_park")
> >>> >> preferred?
> >>> >>  Or do people think that it is better not to tag National Forest
> >>> >> boundaries at all?
> >>>
> >>> >I think they're worth including; most U.S. commercial maps show
> >>> >national forest boundaries; landuse=forest seems to be the appropriate
> >>> >tag to use.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >Chris
> >>>
> >>> others have been using the tags leisure = nature_reserve  boundary =
> >>> national_park
> >>
> >> National Forests are distinctly NOT the same as National Parks in the
> US.
> >> As far as I know, National Forests are more of an administrative area
> and
> >> don't have nearly the same level of protection as National Parks. I'm
> not
> >> even sure they're really a nature reserve.
> >>
> >> Karl
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Talk-us mailing list
> >> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20090219/95775073/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list