[Talk-us] Forest Routes
baloo at ursamundi.org
Thu Nov 29 22:47:44 UTC 2018
The numbering is consistent only within a single National Forest and
numbers will likely repeat even where multiple national forests are
contiguously adjacent. The numbers are unique within each individual
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 16:21 Tod Fitch <tod at fitchdesign.com wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 2018, at 1:28 PM, Jack Burke <burkejf3 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > As Paul said, it depends on the type of road. In Georgia, the signage
> > has been the brown keystone one for roads that mere mortal cars can
> > drive on:
> > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/HD_cjbQunrGWEQCViX-Now
> > And the vertical ones with FS on them for people with more advanced
> > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/3Il7nk3S4MuMX9jR_SIQnw
> > And, as I said, their IVR map uses NF for all of them....
> > --jack
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:36 PM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 14:14 Kevin Broderick <ktb at kevinbroderick.com
> >>> Doesn't the Forest Service use FR for "Forest Road" at the reference?
> I'd think that, or NFR to distinguish from state forest roads, would be the
> more appropriate ref, as FS is ambiguous (it doesn't distinguish between a
> forest road and a forest trail).
> >> Maybe on visitor brochures, but on signage they get keystone shields
> for two digit routes and either a vertical or horizontal rectangle sign
> (depending on whether or not motor vehicles are expected to travel) for
> minor routes, and the numbers all constitute a single network regardless of
> if it's a road or a trail.
> >> I seem to recall when I lived near a national forest that TIGER and the
> USGS would use Forest Service XX when spelling out major routes, and
> National Forest Development XXX or NFD XXXX on the minors.
> >> In either case, most people that travel in or near national forests
> regularly will find FS and NFD immediately recognizable.
> Having just been hiking and sightseeing in the Coconino National Forest,
> sightseeing in the Prescott National Forest, frequently hiking in the
> Angeles National Forest and Cleveland National Forest, occasionally hiking
> in the Coronado National Forest as well as volunteering regularly in the
> Los Padres National Forest, my impression is that signage is inconsistent
> between at least different USFS regions and likely between forests within a
> region. For example, the signage I saw in the Red Rock area of the Coconino
> NF last week were just numeric (and pretty visible) while much of the
> signage in the Los Padres is less visible and in the form of 8N05 (might be
> a “W” instead of “N” if a trail/path).
> So I think this thread is attempting to establish a higher level of
> consistency in tagging USFS roads (and possibly trails) than the USFS has
> been able to achieve itself. Not to say this is a bad thing, but I expect
> any photos of signage from one forest can be contradicted by photos of
> signage from another.
> For roads and trails with a purely numeric forest service ID, I think a
> prefix of “FR” or “FS” in OSM could make sense.
> I suspect, however, that purely numeric ID values are likely not unique
> between different forests, or if not forests then between regions. So “FS
> 525” might well exist in two different parts of the country. Is this a
> problem in OSM? Do we wish to guarantee that a search for a specific
> reference value only turn up one route?
> The forest service seems to have a unique short alphabetic code for each
> forest (at least within a region) that is displayed on the vehicles (e.g.
> LPF for Los Padres National Forest) which I think they use to keep things
> less confused when resources, especially fire crews, are dispatched to
> other forests. From that point of view those alphabetic codes might be
> useful in also tagging routes/road reference if we desire to have each
> unique USFS road/route have a unique OSM reference value.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us