Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[brad]

On 6/20/20 6:19 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:



On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea > 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@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 8:33 PM Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
> > I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged with 
> > access=private and possibly ownership=private
>
> While many Americans like to put "no trespassing" signs on their private 
> property, a privately owned parcel is not access=private unless there are 
> signs on the roads and paths leading into it which say so.
>
> Many privately-owned parcels in the national forests are used for forestry 
> only, and there is no issue with crossing through on a road or trail in many 
> cases.
>
> Generally it is difficult to maintain land ownership data in OpenStreetMap. 
> Fortunately, in the USA there are publicly-available databases which contain 
> this cadastral information, so it is not necessary for us to duplicate it in 
> OpenStreetMap. Database users should expect to get land ownership information 
> directly from official sources, if they want accurate and up-to-data land 
> ownership info by parcel.
>
> For example in Oregon you can get data at 
> https://www.oregon.gov/geo/Pages/sdlibrary.aspx
>
> We should not try to map all land ownership data by parcel in OpenStreetMap.

In the particular case of these public lands, the land ownership, the
land use, and the land's access constraints are inextricably bound
together.

Your contention tends to be interpreted by the 'hard liners' as an
assertion that "public lands that are partly or wholly for recreation,
such as National Forests, but also any of a entire menagerie of other
land classes, ought not to be mapped."  This assertion has effectively
arisen whenever the subject of National Forests arises: much of the US
public expects to see them on a map, but get met with the pernicious
reply, "go to several dozen government agencies and get their
cadastre, but don't map these oblects."  (I'll accept that that';s not
what you meant, but the slope here is indeed slippery.)

In fact, OSM is the only good place that I have to aggregate this
information. When I'm using these boundaries for planning, the parcels
may be administered by multiple Federal, State and local government
agencies, plus NGO's and land trusts.  Each of these has its own
database of what it manages. OSM is the best place that I have to see
all of these public recreation lands at once. One of my favorite
motivating examples is planning a trip to Roundtop Mountain
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/357583100#map=14/42.1726/-74.0598.
The on-trail route from Palenville, far to the east, would have been
quite arduous, beyond what I'd attempt on a day trip.  Access from
Twilight Park to the north would be out of the question - it's a gated
community that does not welcome random visitors.  The snowmobile trail
access from Cortina Lane was closed at the time of year that I was
planning the trip.  I could have made the trip from the Platte Clove
Bruderhof; the religious community there is welcoming, and the trail
is open to the public, but I dislike imposing on their hospitality.
With OSM, I was able to see that the Roundtop Mountain Unit (New York
City Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Supply)
was adjacent to the Kaaterskill Wild Forest, and with my NYC parking
tag and access card in my pack, happily approached the mountain by a
much shorter route from the west.  I'd not have been able to do this
with either agency's information alone.

Now, on to the original question:

I will concede that I've never mapped a National Forest - but I have
helped with the mapping of some similarly-structured National Wildlife
Refuges, and imported data about a great many state lands in New York,
many of which have similarly diffuse boundaries.

What I've done:

1. The outermost boundary of many of these lands consists simply of an
an area in which the managing agency is authorized to acquire land,
and sometimes to apply regulation to the use of property similar to
what a zoning board might impose (and with similar requirements, such
as compensating a landowner if the regulation significantly impairs
the value of a parcel). Ordinarily it is unsigned and unobservable in
the field.  I ignore it for OSM; it's a regulatory designation for the
government's operations, with little impact on protection, public
access, land cover or land use.

2. The actual boundary - of ownership, regulation, protection, and
likely land use - is what most map users expect to see.  In many
cases, these boundaries are quite diffuse. In all the cases that I've
mapped, they're also observable in the field. The managing agency will
post the boundaries at intervals. (In my area, many of the signs look
like 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Preserve_(New_York)#/media/File:NYS_Forest_Preserve_sign.jpg,
but there are numerous older-style markers. Where a road traverses a
parcel, the signage will likely be fancier; one common form is
https://hikingthetrailtoyesterday.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/1wolf-lakedsc046871.jpg.
This boundary is, in all 

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[stevea]

I don't think we should map all ownership in OSM either, however, there is a 
lot of tagging in OSM right now which does tag ownership=national, 
ownership=state, which, for public lands owned by the federal or a state 
government, I have no problem with making this distinction known in OSM 
tagging.  It doesn't "hurt" our data and I personally find it informative to 
make this distinction (sometimes as an OSM author, sometimes as an OSM 
consumer).  I feel here that Joseph is asking us to accept hyperbole ("we 
should not try to map all land ownership by parcel") when I'm not nor do I 
believe our volunteers are asking that.  (I understand why, I even agree, 
"let's not tip towards OSM as cadastral-oracle, those are elsewhere").  I might 
tag something ownership=national or ownership=state on some public land, 
because lots of us seem to be doing that and I find it useful data (sometimes). 
 OSM isn't looked to as a land-ownership database, even as it might have a 
sprinkling of those on data, especially "national vs. state" distinctions for 
public land.  That's fairly common around the world.

In California, if you don't put a Civil Code 1008 sign up on your private-land 
easement, de facto or de jure, it might become a public easement.  There are 
rules, they are local, I don't think OSM wants to quibble here.  We might need 
to quibble and sketch in some localized method of doing things at some level in 
some cases, that's manageable.  I am not an attorney.

It's OK to have similar conversations over and over again.  We get a bit 
smarter and sharper as we do, as long as we don't lose patience or civility.  I 
think we're fine in that department.

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged with
access=private and possibly ownership=private

While many Americans like to put "no trespassing" signs on their private
property, a privately owned parcel is not access=private unless there are
signs on the roads and paths leading into it which say so.

Many privately-owned parcels in the national forests are used for forestry
only, and there is no issue with crossing through on a road or trail in
many cases.

Generally it is difficult to maintain land ownership data in OpenStreetMap.
Fortunately, in the USA there are publicly-available databases which
contain this cadastral information, so it is not necessary for us to
duplicate it in OpenStreetMap. Database users should expect to get land
ownership information directly from official sources, if they want accurate
and up-to-data land ownership info by parcel.

For example in Oregon you can get data at
https://www.oregon.gov/geo/Pages/sdlibrary.aspx

We should not try to map all land ownership data by parcel in OpenStreetMap.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:23 PM stevea  wrote:

> Mike, I hadn't considered that, it distinctly deepens the discussion.
> Stroking my chin and saying "hm" now.
> SteveA
> ___
> 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] National Forest boundaries

[stevea]

Mike, I hadn't considered that, it distinctly deepens the discussion.  Stroking 
my chin and saying "hm" now.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Mike Thompson]

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea  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
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[stevea]

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.

The idea of "both" (in my mind, maybe Mike's too) is that "a good outer is a 
good outer."  We ARE building multipolygons and they are big complex beasts 
around here.  And we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Are you 
willing to "take on" the responsibility of entering a sane (for 2020) relation 
with "simply" a single outer polygon as member of an emerging multipolygon 
relation representing the national forest?  Hey, tag it well and hang it up for 
others to add richer complexity with inner members.  This is (sometimes) how we 
build this map.  (I have offered my efforts for a decade).

I believe we want to tag these with protected_area, whereas we did, but no 
longer, "automatically" double-tag these with natural=wood, as landuse 
(national protected area we manage with our Forest Service, doesn't mean it's a 
forest) is not landcover.  As we're talking about the US, I recommend our wiki 
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States/Public_lands.

That wiki is what might be called "heavier lifting" in how we use a wiki.  Part 
of it intends to be prescriptive, saying "here's how we might very-well tag in 
the USA on public lands, and if we don't, we should" (as an ideal, at least as 
it shapes with sharper focus). Where it dissolves into "how each state does 
this today," it's a DEscriptive canvas of wet paint.  Heavy lifting, yes, but 
we can do this.  That wiki might nudge things forward, I put my shoulder into 
this.  At the federal level (which National Forests are), it does (to me) feel 
like a nice ideal with fairly-well-defined recommended tagging.  Discuss there?

How do what we enter render?  That's another topic.  Let's begin saying "we 
can, do and should enter into OSM well-tagged outer-member (only, to begin 
with) multipolygon relations representing national forests."  With  "perfect, 
rich structure?"  Every single first draft?  Let's talk in a week or month, 
these might take some work and discussion and work and discussion to do them.  
That's OK.  Earth wasn't built in a day.

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Mike Thompson]

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 2:43 PM Paul White  wrote:
>
>
>
> Which one would be better? Looking forward to feedback.
I think we need both. I am open to suggestions as how to accomplish that.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Paul White]

Hello everyone,

I wanted to get some opinions on how exactly National Forest boundaries
should appear in OSM.

Currently there are 2 ways national forest boundaries appear:

1. As simply the proclamation boundary, the original boundary authorized by
Congress, like Pike National Forest
.
This, of course, shows entire towns as protected like a National Forest.

2. A boundary that excludes lands not owned by the Forest Service,
therefore, only includes the land actually under the protection of the
National Forest. See Coconino National Forest.


The USFS describes it as such:

> “External boundary” refers to the perimeter boundaries of a national
> forest or grassland. In some cases, this boundary is also referred to as a
> “proclamation” boundary, or the outer boundary within which Congress
> authorized a particular national forest to be established.“Internal
> boundaries” are those boundaries located within the external boundaries
> that distinguish National Forest System lands from other lands (often
> referred to as inholdings).


Which one would be better? Looking forward to feedback.

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