[Talk-us] National Forests and Private Ownership

[Mike Thompson]

All,

I got this message off list from Greg Mathews who works for the USGS, for
some reason he was unable to post himself (something wrong with his
subscription perhaps):

BEGIN
Hi folks, This is a dataset I'm somewhat familiar with. Likely the best
available data for land management agency boundaries is from PAD-US here:
https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5b030c7ae4b0da30c1c1d6de

Federal land management agency boundaries generally come in two types: 1.
Proclaimed boundaries - these are Congressionally mandated boundaries, and
2. Fee Owned - these are boundaries actually owned by the agencies and show
in-holdings, slightly different boundaries, etc. The Fee Owned is a a
subset of the Congressionally Mandated boundaries as someone else
explained. My unofficial suggestion is if you want to model recreation, it
would be better to show the Fee Owned boundaries so people don't end up on
private lands. The US Topo uses proclaimed at this time.

---------------------
Greg Matthews
Published Maps Products and Services Focus Area Lead
Office of User Engagement
US Geological Survey

END


On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:41 PM Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> This key works for anywhere on this
>> (https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/states-regions/states.php
>> )
>> slippy map - take a look at the national forests near you and you will
>> find plenty of private land that is still within the NF boundary.
>>
> I downloaded a quad (geotiff) for part of the area in question and pulled
> it into QGIS.  It generally agrees with the county land ownership
> information, with the exception that some state lands are shown on the quad
> as owned by the Federal Government.  Perhaps this is an error in one of the
> datasets.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20191015/66bcb01f/attachment.html>