[Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
>
> A large thank-you to Kevin for that deeply informative post.
>
> > brad <bradhaack at fastmail.com> wrote:
> > I think its simpler and better to just create an inner boundary as was
done with the Coconino NF
>
> The Coconio NF (relation/10956348) hasn't "an" inner boundary, it has
hundreds of them.  I'm not sure I understand what Brad is saying is
"simpler and better" here, as a well-constructed multipolygon in OSM is "a
well-constructed multipolygon in OSM."  We already know how to do that so I
don't think we want to develop something else to represent the same thing.
>
> Is Brad or Mike proposing something else, like two multipolygons to
describe one national forest?
One polygon for the administrative boundary of the NF which was established
by Congress.
Zero or more polygons describing limitations on access (no need for
polygons to for access=yes, we can assume that in a NF generally), whether
they be due to private ownership, or other reasons.
The above are two separate concepts, so it is ok to have two separate OSM
elements, in my opinion.
A relation for all would be ok too, as long as the private inholdings are
not removed from the NF (which I think has been done in some cases).

Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200621/10c56bab/attachment-0001.htm>