[Talk-us] Wilderness areas separate from forest?

[stevea]

On Dec 26, 2019, at 12:52 AM, talk-us-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
> If I am looking at the map data correctly, it seem that at least some designated wilderness areas are excluded from the forest that they are in. For example the Chumash Wilderness [1] seems to have its border as an outer on the Los Padres National Forest [2].

Without doing some exhausting delving into database history, I can say that I recall an attempt to coalesce all of the Los Padres National Forest as well as Cleveland NF (and all in San Diego County if memory serves) circa 2011 to 2012, but a death in my family paused my work on this , then I never really got back to the full completion (of all of Region 5) that I wanted to finish.  I did document what I completed in the wiki (and sent my "ten steps" document to about a dozen people who asked me for it) and have noted that other mappers (in particular a very contentious one who I believe lives near Redding / Shasta Lake) have since rather badly goofed up the boundaries / inclusions.  It is possible I didn't quite get right the "inclusion" of wilderness inside these NFs (it is subtle to get the multipolygon members and roles correct, but there IS a correct way to do it), but in many cases it has gotten worse with time and poor multipolygon authorship.

> This does not seem correct to me. In this specific case the wilderness is administered as part of the Mt. Pinos Ranger District of the Los Padres National Forest. I believe the same situation exists with the San Mateo Wilderness in the Cleveland National Forest.

I invite and even encourage proper tagging on LPNF, CNF (and all Region 5 USFS NFs).  This means that the wilderness "is" and "be shown" as "included IN the forest that contains it."

> What is our tagging policy on this? Should the wilderness be shown as part of the forest that contains it? (I realize there may be wilderness areas that cover multiple forests but the usual case is that a wilderness area is a subset of a forest both geographically and administratively.

Exactly right, Tod (and Joseph, yes, as you say, MMW should be included in Klamath NF, imho).

SteveA
California