Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 133, Issue 8

[Michael Patrick]

> > I've noticed that federal Wilderness areas in Northern California and
> > Southern Oregon are mapped as if they are not part of the surrounding
> > national forest(s).
> >
> > Is this correct mapping? On older USGS maps the Wilderness areas were
> > always shown as being enclosed by the surrounding National Forest (or
> > other Federal lands).
>

*"The Wilderness Act of 1964 allows Congress to designate wilderness areas
to ensure that America’s pristine wild lands will not disappear. Wilderness
areas can be part of national parks, national wildlife refuges, national
forests or public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management."* from
https://www.doi.gov/blog/americas-public-lands-explained

*"Lands designated as Wilderness are found on portions of the lands
administered by Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Forest Service, and National Park Service." *

The Bob Marshall Wilderness is one of the three wilderness areas composing
the BMWC ( the Great Bear, the Scapegoat, and  Bob Marshall Wilderness
Complex) . It is has 1,063,503 acres on both the Flathead National Forest
and the Lewis and Clark National Forest.The Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area
in Utah has U.S. Department of Defense lands for communications,
instrumentation, and electronic tracking systems for the Utah Test and
Training Range.  Mission Mountains Wilderness is bordered by the Salish-
Kootenai tribal wilderness - I think there was one wilderness area which
ended up crossing tribal lands somewhere. There are state and tribal
wilderness areas. DOE is the fourth largest federal land manage, I'm sure
they might have some holding in Wilderness Areas, I know of Hanford Reach
National Monument.

Then you have Wilderness Study Areas. And there are thousands of in
holdings, edge holdings, and cherry stem holdings where private, state, and
tribal lands fall withing the Wilderness designated boundary. BLM says of
the 418 units of designated wilderness in the 13 Western states, 111, or 27
percent, have in holdings.Nationwide there are  45 million acres of
inholdings, an area larger than the State of Washington.

So the Designation boundary is not necessarily the ownership boundary or
the management boundary.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Wilderness in National Forest?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:38 AM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> I've noticed that federal Wilderness areas in Northern California and
> Southern Oregon are mapped as if they are not part of the surrounding
> national forest(s).
>
> Is this correct mapping? On older USGS maps the Wilderness areas were
> always shown as being enclosed by the surrounding National Forest (or
> other Federal lands).
>

I thought I'd answered this, but I can't find it in my 'Sent' folder.
Forgive me if this turns out to be a duplicate message.

New York has only one (quite small) National Forest, so I can't comment
specifically on embedded wilderness areas in National Forests.
Nevertheless, we have a similar situation with Wilderness, Wild Forest,
Canoe Area, Primitive Area, etc. embedded in the Catskill and Adirondack
Parks. We already have those embedded areas set up with boundary=protected
area (example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6360488) with the
enclosing parks tagged with boundary=national_park (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1695394). The Wilderness areas enjoy
a stronger protection than the park as a whole, but are unquestionably a
part of it. I presume that's how embedded Wilderness in the National
Forests works, too?

Incidentally, I'm comfortable with boundary=national_park for the
Adirondack and Catskill Parks. The Federal government shares sovereignty
with the States, and New York created these two parks acting as a sovereign
entity. They enjoy stronger protection than the US National Parks - a
simple public law could revoke the latter, while the former are enshrined
in the state constitution and would require a constitutional amendment to
change them. They predate the National Park Service, by the way.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Monterey - Santa Cruz County line in Monterey Bay

[Kevin]

In most states the coastal county boundaries correspond with the 3 nmi
state boundary.  I'm actually not aware of any that don't and from the
court cases cited in the initial email, it sounds like California counties
do in fact extend to the 3 nmi boundary. I took a look at the TIGER county
boundaries and they correspond pretty well to what's already mapped for the
Monterey-Santa Cruz boundary across Monterey Bay and they extend out 3 nmi.
I looked around for county and state sources for the boundaries, but like
Martijn said, they only go to the shoreline. Attribution in the relation
for Monterey County is "CASIL cnty24k09_1_poly.shp" which leads me to
https://geodata.lib.berkeley.edu/catalog/ark28722-s73w23.  Again this
data-set only goes to the shoreline. The source on the 3 nmi boundary is
"TIGER 2011 county borders".  What I think someone has done is use the
CASIL data on land and extended it out using TIGER to demarcate county
divisions out at the 3 nmi boundary, which I think was the correct thing to
do.

So back to the original question about the Monterey-Santa Cruz line... I
can look around for more information and may call Monterey County and see
if they have a more up-to-date county boundary.

Kevin



On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 10:57 AM Greg Troxel  wrote:

> Martijn van Exel  writes:
>
> > You are correct. The official Monterey County GIS file from [1] has
> > the boundary at the shoreline, whereas OSM has it going out into the
> > ocean, see https://imgur.com/a/aCMROQZ 
> > (OSM in orange, Official GIS in dark gray).
> >
> > I don’t know all coastal counties have their official boundaries at the
> shoreline, but OSM has them all reaching into the ocean. [2]
> > I also don’t know if there is some convention in OSM (US) to have
> > coastal country boundaries match up with the higher level boundary. If
> > there is perhaps we may need to revisit?
>
> This is tricky business.
>
> Generally, the jurisdiciton of the state seems to go to 3 nmi (east and
> west coasts).  However, whether those state lands are in any town or
> county is an interesting question.
>
>
> https://coast.noaa.gov/data/Documents/OceanLawSearch/Summary%20of%20Law%20-%20Submerged%20Lands%20Act.pdf
> http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/czm/moris/metadata/moris_sla_arc.htm
>
> In Massachusetts, towns and counties do include the state lands.
>
> I would recommend looking up California law and asking this question in
> particular.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Monterey - Santa Cruz County line in Monterey Bay

[Greg Troxel]

Martijn van Exel  writes:

> You are correct. The official Monterey County GIS file from [1] has
> the boundary at the shoreline, whereas OSM has it going out into the
> ocean, see https://imgur.com/a/aCMROQZ 
> (OSM in orange, Official GIS in dark gray).
>
> I don’t know all coastal counties have their official boundaries at the 
> shoreline, but OSM has them all reaching into the ocean. [2]
> I also don’t know if there is some convention in OSM (US) to have
> coastal country boundaries match up with the higher level boundary. If
> there is perhaps we may need to revisit?

This is tricky business.

Generally, the jurisdiciton of the state seems to go to 3 nmi (east and
west coasts).  However, whether those state lands are in any town or
county is an interesting question.

https://coast.noaa.gov/data/Documents/OceanLawSearch/Summary%20of%20Law%20-%20Submerged%20Lands%20Act.pdf
http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/czm/moris/metadata/moris_sla_arc.htm

In Massachusetts, towns and counties do include the state lands.

I would recommend looking up California law and asking this question in
particular.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Monterey - Santa Cruz County line in Monterey Bay

[Martijn van Exel]

You are correct. The official Monterey County GIS file from [1] has the 
boundary at the shoreline, whereas OSM has it going out into the ocean, see 
https://imgur.com/a/aCMROQZ  (OSM in orange, 
Official GIS in dark gray).

I don’t know all coastal counties have their official boundaries at the 
shoreline, but OSM has them all reaching into the ocean. [2]
I also don’t know if there is some convention in OSM (US) to have coastal 
country boundaries match up with the higher level boundary. If there is perhaps 
we may need to revisit?

Martijn

[1] 
http://montereycountyopendata-12017-01-13t232948815z-montereyco.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/moco-boundary
 

[2] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/EgP  (large 
query)

> On Dec 3, 2018, at 5:48 PM, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> From the Help page, user kurtrad writes:
> 
>> "A friend of mine says the Monterey/Santa Cruz county line in openstreets 3 
>> miles out to sea that travels from the mouth of the pajaro river to the 
>> north south california boundary line is wrong. In openstreetsmap the line 
>> travels west, south, west. My friend says the line should travel directly 
>> west."
> 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/36.8266/-121.9009
> 
> "I have a friend who says the openstreets map county line between
> Monterey and Santa Cruz is wrong according to a 1927 California
> Supreme Court Ruling."
> 
>> "Comments: Official boundaries of Monterey-Santa Cruz, as determined by the 
>> California Supreme Court in Ocean Industries v. Superior Court of 
>> California, in and for Santa Cruz County (1927) 200 Cal. 235. The decision 
>> held that Monterey Bay as a "closed bay" under law, and there is treated as 
>> if it were land for purposes of State and County jurisdiction -- which, in 
>> the case, held that Santa Cruz County could enforce fishing regulations in 
>> SCZ waters in Monterey Bay more than 3 miles offshore."
> 
> "I have a longish discussion at
> http://creagrus.home.montereybay.com/MtyBay-boundaries.html;
> 
>> "Government Code section 23127 defines Monterey County as "beginning in the 
>> Pacific Ocean, at the southwest corner of Santa Cruz [County]; thence east 
>> to the mouth of the Pajaro River". Likewise, section 23144 defines Santa 
>> Cruz County, in pertinent part, as "westerly along said [Pajaro] River" 
>> along the northern line of San Benito and Monterey "to the Bay of Monterey, 
>> and three miles westerly into the ocean."
> 
>> "The ... map shows a line across Monterey Bay in this tiny sliver of the Bay 
>> that runs not > "west-east" but about WSW-ENE and connects up with the 
>> "nearest point of land" line at the 3 mile limit west of Monterey Bay."
> 
>> "To see images go to 
>> http://creagrus.home.montereybay.com/MtyBay-boundaries.html;
> 
> Does anyone want to look into this?
> - Joseph
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us