[Talk-us] Green Mountain National Forest cleanup

Adam Franco adamfranco at gmail.com
Wed Jan 18 01:59:10 UTC 2017


Thanks for another fabulously detailed reply Kevin!

So it sounds like I'm on the right track then and it makes sense to leave
the broad outer boundaries as *boundary=national_park* and use the
*boundary=protected_area
+ leisure=nature_reserve* combo for the smaller US Forest Service-owned
parcels.

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com>
wrote:

> My big issue with this is that we - alas! - need to have something "tagged
> for the renderer."
>
> Over on the other side of Lake Champlain and the Taconics, we have the
> same problem with the Catskill and Adirondack Parks, which are protected
> areas with an immense public-private partnership. (Something over half the
> Adirondack Park is owned by New York State, and the rest is quite
> restrictively administered by the Adirondack Park Agency. Its level of
> protection exceeds that of any of our National Parks.)
>
> The problem is that boundary=protected_area does not render in any of the
> map layers available from openstreetmap.org. People editing
> protected_area's cannot see their results on the server, and newcomers to
> OSM don't even know that we have them in the database.
>
> I'd say that the answer is, "fix the renderer" - and surely
> Mapnik/Carto/... can handle it, since I use that toolchain to render my own
> maps. The underlying issue is that to fix it in any of the default
> renderings (OSM default, OpenCycleMap, etc.), 'hstore' would have to be
> enabled on the server's database to get the 'protect_class' tag into the
> system. For whatever reason, the server team has balked at doing this for
> quite literally several years. I do not expect this situation to resolve in
> my lifetime,. and I have ceased to request any support for protected area
> rendering. Instead, I do most of my own rendering on maps such as
> http://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test3.html, and accept the fact that I
> will have a day or two delay in being able to retrieve any updates. (I
> don't have the resources to accept minutely updates, so I depend on the
> daily extracts at geofabrik.de. Often, I let my map fall several months
> behind, when I'm not actively mapping).
>
> Most US mappers have simply accepted that the renderer will not be fixed.
> The compromise that I used when reworking the Adirondack Park polygons was
> not well received on this list, but at least nobody reverted the changes.
> In that compromise solution:
>
> - the Adirondack and Catskill Parks as a whole were tagged
> boundary=national_park. This tagging is close to the truth except that it
> is New York State rather than a nation-state that administers it. Given the
> US principle of separate sovereignty, I'm willing to live with this.
>
> - the individual state (and in the case of the Catskills, New York City)
> owned parcels received the additional tagging of 'leisure=nature_reserve'
> plus appropriate 'protected_area' tagging. That way, they are correct in
> the new scheme and still render plausibly. 'Nature reserves' encompass many
> different things, so I wasn't too uncomfortable with this tagging.
>
> - I seriously attempted to make appropriate choices for 'protect_class'
> and related tags. This sometimes meant up-classifying relative to the IUCN
> database. IUCN wants to classify the Adirondack and Catskill holdings no
> higher than protect_class=6, because they don't enjoy national-level
> protection. That's again a failure to understand the US legal system; the
> State-level protection that they enjoy is far stronger than any Federal
> protection: these two parks are read into the state constitution. I was
> entirely comfortable giving the High Peaks or West Canada Lake wilderness
> areas protect_class=1b. They are indeed protected wilderness, where Man is
> a visitor who does not remain.
>
> The result of the compromise is, as you can see:
>
> - everything renders on the main page. The parks are at least visible.
> (There has been at least one round with the National Forests that rendered
> them entirely invisible.)
>
> - the 'landuse=forest' tag is not abused. There is no green infill on
> tracts that are not forested. The system still presumes that
> 'landuse=forest' means 'every square metre covered by trees - and cannot
> cope with the idea of 'the landowner's intent is to use the tract for
> forestry, but this particular bit, this year, is occupied by beavers' -
> according to the OSM purists, that's no longer 'forest'. (For this reason,
> I find 'landuse=forest' to be nearly useless: all the 'forest' tracts that
> I've ever mapped have transient or permanent phenomena meaning that
> individual pieces may be clearcut, bare rock, or open water at a particular
> time.)
>
> - the 'leisure=nature_reserve' tag is only slightly abused. A wilderness
> area, a wildlife management region, or a protected watershed (all of which
> permit recreational use) are all reserved to nature, and no US English
> speaker would be astonished at the tagging. I refuse to fight with the
> purists on this issue. There is no other suitable tag available that will
> ever be rendered on the main map.
>
> - the 'boundary=national_park' tag is abused on very few polygons, and can
> be reverted if and when there is ever a rendering of the protected_area
> status. I am not optimistic that this will occur.
>
> This issue has been discussed here many times before. The result is an
> impasse. This is one of the issues where nobody has been able to span the
> "US-European divide." I do not expect it ever to be resolved, so any
> tagging plan will either be an awkward compromise or result in invisble
> features.
>
> This is not a case of, "it's open source, so if you need it done, do it
> yourself." I'd be perfectly willing to do it myself, if it were not for the
> fact that "doing it myself" would involve building an entire server
> infrastructure to support a different rendering of the main map. That's not
> something within my capability.
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Adam Franco <adamfranco at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I'm planning to do some cleanup of the Green Mountain National Forest in
>> Vermont and figured it might be useful to provide the opportunity for
>> feedback before embarking on this project.
>>
>> The Green Mountain National forest is currently mapped as two large
>> outer-area relations that include large swaths of private land and many
>> ways and relations that mark independent parcel boundaries -- the latter
>> having a multitude of tag schemes.
>>
>> Outer area boundaries:
>>
>>    - northern section: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2030450
>>    - southern section: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1610349
>>
>> Many parcel boundaries (examples):
>>
>>    - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6850907#map=13/44.044
>>    4/-73.0668
>>    - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6631735#map=12/44.007
>>    0/-72.9569
>>    - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116060714#map=12/44.0123/-72.9418
>>    - ....
>>
>> There is very little consistency in the tagging of the parcel boundaries
>> -- many are tagged as boundary=national_park, others are tagged as
>> boundary=protected_area. As well, many [most?] are tagged with
>> landuse=forest even if they are sensitive areas (protected watersheds),
>> wilderness areas (no logging allowed ever), designated recreation areas, or
>> otherwise not open to logging.
>>
>> I propose to group all of the parcel boundaries into two super-relations,
>> one for the northern half of the GMNF and one for the souther half of the
>> GMNF. These super-relations would have:
>>
>>    - type <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:type>=boundary
>>    <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:type%3Dboundary>
>>    - boundary <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boundary>=
>>    protected_area
>>    <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area>
>>    - protect_class
>>    <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:protect_class>=6
>>    - protection_title
>>    <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:protection_title>=National
>>    Forest
>>    - protected <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:protected>
>>    =perpetuity
>>    - operator <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:operator>=United
>>    States Forest Service
>>
>>    - leisure=nature_reserve (this seemed to be recommended in the "Okanogan-Wenatchee
>>    National Forest (landuse=forest and US National forests again)
>>    <https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-us@openstreetmap.org/msg16713.html>"
>>    discussion a few months ago)
>>
>> as described on US Forest Service Data wiki page
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Service_Data#National_Forest_Boundaries>.
>>
>>
>> The members of this super-relations would have their own tags either
>> normalized to the same values above the super-relation (maintaining
>> additional parcel-specific details) or would have their duplicative tags
>> removed. In particular, the boundary=national_park tag would be be
>> normalized to boundary=protected_area and the landuse=forest tag would
>> generally be removed.
>>
>> I'm planning to do all of this cleanup manually sometime soon and just
>> wondered if anyone had any further suggestions. I guess an alternative
>> process would be to reimport the parcel boundaries from the latest "Survey
>> Boundaries maintained by the US Forest Service
>> <https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php>" file, but I'm not
>> sure if that might be more difficult or easier.
>>
>> Thanks for any input!
>> Adam
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Adam%20Franco
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20170117/416d99f6/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list