[Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest

[brad]

I'm with Kevin, SteveA, etc,  here.   In the part of the world that I 
live, a map without national forest & BLM boundaries is very 
incomplete.   A useful OSM needs this.   The useful boundary would be 
the actual ownership boundary, not the outer potential ownership 
boundary.   Messy, I know.

On 9/1/20 7:05 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:52 AM Bradley White 
> <theangrytomato at gmail.com <mailto:theangrytomato at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>          If you drive into a checkerboard
>         area of private/public land, there are no Forest Service signs
>         at the
>         limits of private land.
>
>
>     In my neck of the woods, USFS owned land is signed fairly
>     frequently with small yellow property markers at the boundaries.
>
>
> In repeated discussions about the large government-owned 
> mixed-public-use land areas in the US, people have argued repeatedly 
> that the boundaries are unverifiable.  We've shown references like 
> https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gwj/specialplaces/?cid=stelprdb5276999 indicating 
> that the boundaries are indeed marked, and how they are marked.
>
> Note that that reference distinguishes the proclaimed boundary - the 
> large region in which the Congress has authorized the National Forest 
> to exist - from the actual forest land.
>
>     Maps commonly show proclaimed national forest boundaries. However,
>     all land within these boundaries is not national forest land; some
>     is privately owned. The user is cautioned to comply with state law
>     and owner's rules when entering onto private land.
>
>
> This has failed to satisfy. The same individuals continue to contend, 
> each time the topic comes around, that the boundaries are 
> unverifiable, and to cling to that contention in the face of this 
> evidence. In a previous round, one of the people actually advanced the 
> argument that only each individual sign, blaze, stake or cairn is 
> verifiable, and that the line that they mark is not verifiable and 
> ought not to be mapped.
>
> This behaviour convinced me long ago that there is a certain 
> contingent here, almost entirely comprising people who've never set 
> foot in a National Forest, who ardently wish to keep US National 
> Forests and similar lands (e.g., the zoo of New York State 
> public-access areas, the Pennsylvania State Game Lands, and even our 
> State Parks) off the map, for reasons that don't touch on 
> verifiability, but throw verifiability into the pot in an effort to 
> make a stronger case.
> -- 
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200902/64e0fb7f/attachment.htm>