[Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

[Bradley White]

Every National Forest has an administrative boundary - they can be
downloaded here:
https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/webapps/EDW_DataExtract/. Accept the
disclaimer, click the button with the scissors in the top left corner,
choose the national forest you want, select 'Administrative Forest
Boundaries' (preselected), choose your file format, and open in your
favorite GIS program. This boundary is what is in OSM, or at least
what should be. These boundaries can also be viewed using USFS Topo
maps (https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/states-regions/states.php)

You will see that sometimes private land punches a hole in these
boundaries, and if so it should be in OSM as such. But you will also
see that sometimes (often times in the west coast), private land
*doesn't* punch a hole in the boundary, and thus there *shouldn't* be
a hole in the boundary in OSM despite being a private in-holding. This
is what I mean by these conflating landuse and jurisdiction. Private
land inside NF boundaries does not automatically mean there's a hole
in NF boundary.

Please do not add holes in the boundary unless they are officially
designated! Otherwise there is no point to keeping these
administrative boundaries in OSM.

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:45 PM Kevin <ksamples at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bradley,
> I'm not sure that this is typically how federal lands are conceptualized, at least on the east coast.  It is usually as Mike suggests a 1:1 correspondence with the actual Fee Simple boundary and federal management.  A lot of times when maps are drawn or gis data is developed scale is a consideration and just conveying where a National Forest is is more important than showing a patchwork of in-holdings (which by the way are constantly changing with land swaps and selling or buying parcels). This may be where the idea of an administrative boundary or area comes from? In any case a really excellent source for all protected lands is the USGS PAD-US dataset.  https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/science/protected-areas
> Disclaimer: I am the Georgia data steward.
>
> So Mike,
> I would say if you have the information and data that there's a private in-holding, I would exclude it from the National Forest (or whatever) polygon and maybe map the landcover (forest, etc) if you are so inclined.
>
> Kevin
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:12 PM Bradley White <theangrytomato at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, this is incorrect. USFS administrative boundaries and USFS managed
>> land are not the same thing, though the latter is always inside the
>> former. The boundaries currently in OSM are administrative boundaries,
>> and are tagged correctly as such. It is perfectly fine to have private
>> land within a USFS administrative boundary, in the same way it would
>> be okay to have private land within any other government-defined
>> jurisdictional boundary.
>>
>> > The consensus of those who replied seem to be to exclude these privately held lands from the National Forest boundaries.  Is that correct? Does anyone object to that approach?  If not, I will proceed in that manner as well.
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us