[Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Paul White]

*Sorry, forgot to send this to the mailing list...*

Thanks for the input. However, doesn't that violate "one feature, one OSM
element" ?
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element> I
believe we should stick with the inholding method, because separating
national forests into different relations complicates search features,
rendering, etc.

For most users, the proclamation boundary would be pretty useless if
ownership is already there. As Kevin noted, the proclamation boundary shows
an area that the government has been authorized to acquire land, and has
little impact on actual protection and land cover.

I'm glad to hear everyone's opinions and insight on this issue!

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 2:15 PM Paul White <pjwhite1010 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the input. However, doesn't that violate "one feature, one OSM
> element" ?
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element> I
> believe we should stick with the inholding method, because separating
> national forests into different relations complicates search features,
> rendering, etc.
>
> For most users, the proclamation boundary would be pretty useless if
> ownership is already there. As Kevin noted, the proclamation boundary shows
> an area that the government has been authorized to acquire land, and has
> little impact on actual protection and land cover.
>
> I'm glad to hear everyone's opinions and insight on this issue!
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 1:43 PM Adam Franco <adamfranco at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Three years ago I updated the tagging and relations
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45287531> of the Green Mountain
>> National Forest <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2030450> in
>> Vermont after some discussion in the Tagging list (start
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2017-January/016986.html>,
>> after
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2017-January/016994.html>
>> some comments from Kevin).  What I ended up doing is setting the outer
>> "proclamation boundary" as one relation
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2030450> tagged with boundary=national_park +
>> boundary_type=protected_area + protect_class=6 and the actual parcels
>> are a separate relation <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1610352>
>> tagged with boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6 (and
>> leisure=nature_reserve for rendering -- not sure if that is still
>> needed). Wilderness and recreation areas within the National Forest are not
>> members of the main parcel relation, but instead are their own
>> ways/relations with tagging that indicates the higher level of protection
>> in them such as protect_class=1b for wilderness areas (examples: Joseph
>> Battell Wilderness <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116060596>,  Big
>> Branch Wilderness <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116060601>) and
>> protect_class=5 for recreation areas (example: Moosalamoo National
>> Recreation Area <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1610350>).
>>
>> I can't say that this tagging is necessarily correct, but it has proven
>> to be pretty useful in a few ways:
>>
>>    1. The "proclamation boundary" is a big area that provides an
>>    appropriate name on low-zoom maps.
>>    2. Having the parcel relation (with cut-outs for in-holdings) is
>>    super useful when exploring the forest and wanting to be aware of the
>>    potential for no-trespassing signage.
>>
>> I haven't looked at other National Forests in depth, but some in CO (like Roosevelt
>> National Forest <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/395767> and Pike
>> National Forest <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/393066>) are
>> just one big relation with boundary=national_park +
>> boundary_type=protected_area + protect_class=6  and no separate parcel
>> relations. If the actual outer "proclamation boundary" matches the main
>> extent of the parcels that is probably much simpler. In the case of the
>> Green Mountain National Forest the "proclamation boundary" almost never
>> matches the outer edge of the parcels, but covers a much wider area --
>> hence mapping both.
>>
>> Hope this helps!
>> Adam
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:08 PM brad <bradhaack at fastmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 6/20/20 6:19 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I think we need both as well.  I've been doing this while watching the
>>> evolution of how we best do this as I participate in a "do our best, always
>>> better" efforts to accomplish this.  Even now!
>>> >
>>> > The idea of the first kind is simply a relation with a focus on the /
>>> a polygon with the outer (-most) membership.  The idea of the second kind
>>> is one of these plus a carefully crafted inner membership, often made up of
>>> a complex inholding distribution containing many sometimes complex
>>> themselves inner polygons.
>>> Thanks Steve for your insightful comments.
>>>
>>> I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged with
>>> access=private and possibly ownership=private
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> I think its simpler and better to just create an inner boundary as was
>>> done with the Coconino NF
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20200621/fe54b78b/attachment.htm>