Re: [Talk-us] Wilderness areas separate from forest?
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 3:41 PM Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us wrote: > Sorry for the late entry to the discussion but I did have a little > information to add here. > > Wilderness, at least at the federal level, enjoys a different protection from > that of a national forest. There is to be no development or tree harvesting > in such areas and even wildfire management may be different. I wouldn't > necessarily start combining the two together as they are managed differently > and have different purposes and landuse protections. Nobody's proposing that they just be combined. The wilderness area is still "part of" the National Forest; it will be mapped separately, but will not be cut out of the National Forest boundary. We've done things that way for non-Federal wilderness areas in New York for quite a while now. For example, the Indian Head Wilderness https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6365026 is mapped, and is not cut out of the larger Catskill Park https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6265477 because the Indian Head Wilderness is a part of the Catskill Park. To map the Catskill Park as being, "the designated area of the Catskill Park. minus the State-designated Wilderness, Wild Forest, and Primitive Areas, the New York City Watershed Recreation Areas, the state campgrounds, the Catskill Visitor Center, the Catskill Center for Conservation and Development, the Nature Conservancy and Open Space Institute reserves, and the Belleayre Ski Center (and I'm probably forgetting a few other more-protected areas)" would be pretty nonsensical. I think data consumers have to be prepared to deal with the fact that national parks and other large reserves will have parts that have a different protection class from the default for the reserve as a whole. This practice is also consistent with IUCN recommendations: see https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/PAG-021.pdf pp 36-38. "Can a protected area contain more than one category?" which specifically contemplates that management zones within a larger protected area should acquire their own protection class when they are clearly mapped, recognized in law or by other effective means, have unambiguous management aims that are distinct from those of the larger protected area taken as a whole, and are of significant extent. A wilderness area within a National Forest satisfies all of these conditions. Moreover, the same section of the guidelines specifically warns that a data model must guard against overcounting when using such 'nested' areas for statistical analysis. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Wilderness areas separate from forest?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Sorry for the late entry to the discussion but I did have a little information to add here. Wilderness, at least at the federal level, enjoys a different protection from that of a national forest. There is to be no development or tree harvesting in such areas and even wildfire management may be different. I wouldn't necessarily start combining the two together as they are managed differently and have different purposes and landuse protections. Eric "Sparks" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: ProtonMail wsFcBAEBCAAGBQJeC7ILAAoJEIB2q94CS7PRxsUP/3U96edPZ2FWSN6TnqjU 4THwLHaUHz2qOQTNjm0Ctef7BZbDgck7omAELU2OJUpYELoU71vvqu9PRvI0 YMupqUoHf41jU7RZ0VIZglq9hCo5/SZDJ7MMghNQ6ANewF00bUsFToVWltJp hGT/07jw5Tz6gdZ/b5B9J9VLDqz4w5CXOCjMmhhY3LJ9kyn6E8DkBQa7seSV lIHc8WuEIs127wpMuIQAfykg9BEEBy/3suIpUSzF6YR5Nb6uTn3KQifGFoP0 XwMUR7cKcMrdz/j8PW24rpazrbA3UmelcbA7pasOPd3Z8icHRCxhBilWIQt2 bIIPU9Q8809pxwTKpY8hHizl6lWTjnvLcdG4JG8L7G9PidnC3gl64HMtN4YF 5e8A2qUrYycm27meWMlhGr/R3wDUtkJd343uZn7OCAK2qUR5Ms5wA0MYCT7j 40l5e52JQ6TbcrVMzmzfuioE+i06BZ7sCsTOySl3PtC/YP1hjQc+lHyi2MpQ EzUKJbUnjGH2in2mimJUxq9rq3xCEGQMTmXws7fnF7AlWuOShg+kDaWvwj9G Fi5f+TrBuKGgdPFAIgDcpVnKWgtWkGxIvV0h6l1mCpFCRi+mT8COHp8SBOAq DB7PpqspjCrAkKafzsIvHf0wfTWaQt+4XJvFjrhVRGFWxFQUPJJpj6Bq1g05 BbSJ =AFMX -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Wilderness areas separate from forest?
On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 8:40 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > If I am looking at the map data correctly, it seem that at least some > designated wilderness areas are excluded from the forest that they are in. > For example the Chumash Wilderness [1] seems to have its border as an outer > on the Los Padres National Forest [2]. > > This does not seem correct to me. In this specific case the wilderness is > administered as part of the Mt. Pinos Ranger District of the Los Padres > National Forest. I believe the same situation exists with the San Mateo > Wilderness in the Cleveland National Forest. > > What is our tagging policy on this? Should the wilderness be shown as part of > the forest that contains it? My home state of New York has no Federally protected wilderness, but we have rather a lot of wilderness that enjoys even stronger State-level protection. Most of our designated wilderness areas (and all that are titled Wilderness, as opposed to Forest Preserve Detached Parcel or something) are located within the Adirondack and Catskill Parks. For the ones whose boundaries I've edited (that is to say, virtually all of them), I've kept them consistently as inside the parks. It seems to me, for instance, that it's nonsensical to make a cutout from the Adirondack Park to accommodate the High Peaks Wilderness (or, indeed, any of the other Wilderness, Wild Forest, Canoe or Primitive Areas, etc; we have a whole menagerie of designations). Where a wilderness area shares a boundary with the larger park, I've been attempting to conflate the ways, but have only barely started on that job, so there is a lot of nuisance misalignment at the edges. (In my controversial opinion: better to have them mapped with nuisance misalignments than not to have them mapped at all. Others, I recognize, disagree.) I've had to deal with the situation of crossing borders in only one case, and that one is somewhat up in the air. There's one parcel of Elm Ridge Wild Forest https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6373226 that's located outside the boundary of the Catskill Park. It's a newly acquired (2013) parcel transferred from New York City to New York State. The last (2015) approved amendment to the unit management plan does not include this acquisitiion. The Catskill Park State Land Master Plan of the time includes it as an 'Unclassified' parcel. There were public hearings in 2016 regarding the planning (slides at https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/haydenpubmeetaug10.pdf) but as yet no formal publication of any conclusion. I've simply mapped the area as a multipolygon, and intend to conflate borders where it shares a border with the Catskill Park - but have not yet done so. In conclusion, I agree with you that the wilderness area is indeed part of the National Forest (or in my case, State Forest Preserve) that contains it. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Wilderness areas separate from forest?
On Dec 26, 2019, at 12:52 AM, talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > If I am looking at the map data correctly, it seem that at least some > designated wilderness areas are excluded from the forest that they are in. > For example the Chumash Wilderness [1] seems to have its border as an outer > on the Los Padres National Forest [2]. Without doing some exhausting delving into database history, I can say that I recall an attempt to coalesce all of the Los Padres National Forest as well as Cleveland NF (and all in San Diego County if memory serves) circa 2011 to 2012, but a death in my family paused my work on this , then I never really got back to the full completion (of all of Region 5) that I wanted to finish. I did document what I completed in the wiki (and sent my "ten steps" document to about a dozen people who asked me for it) and have noted that other mappers (in particular a very contentious one who I believe lives near Redding / Shasta Lake) have since rather badly goofed up the boundaries / inclusions. It is possible I didn't quite get right the "inclusion" of wilderness inside these NFs (it is subtle to get the multipolygon members and roles correct, but there IS a correct way to do it), but in many cases it has gotten worse with time and poor multipolygon authorship. > This does not seem correct to me. In this specific case the wilderness is > administered as part of the Mt. Pinos Ranger District of the Los Padres > National Forest. I believe the same situation exists with the San Mateo > Wilderness in the Cleveland National Forest. I invite and even encourage proper tagging on LPNF, CNF (and all Region 5 USFS NFs). This means that the wilderness "is" and "be shown" as "included IN the forest that contains it." > What is our tagging policy on this? Should the wilderness be shown as part of > the forest that contains it? (I realize there may be wilderness areas that > cover multiple forests but the usual case is that a wilderness area is a > subset of a forest both geographically and administratively. Exactly right, Tod (and Joseph, yes, as you say, MMW should be included in Klamath NF, imho). SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Wilderness areas separate from forest?
I agree that the current OpenStreetMap data is wrong. For example, I grew up in the Klamath National Forest, and that area should include the Marble Mountain wilderness, it’s shouldn’t be a hole in the National Forest. -Joseph On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:40 AM Tod Fitch wrote: > If I am looking at the map data correctly, it seem that at least some > designated wilderness areas are excluded from the forest that they are in. > For example the Chumash Wilderness [1] seems to have its border as an outer > on the Los Padres National Forest [2]. > > This does not seem correct to me. In this specific case the wilderness is > administered as part of the Mt. Pinos Ranger District of the Los Padres > National Forest. I believe the same situation exists with the San Mateo > Wilderness in the Cleveland National Forest. > > What is our tagging policy on this? Should the wilderness be shown as part > of the forest that contains it? (I realize there may be wilderness areas > that cover multiple forests but the usual case is that a wilderness area is > a subset of a forest both geographically and administratively. > > Comments? > > Thanks > Tod > > > [1] > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2779216#map=12/34.7913/-119.1759 > [2] > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2784140#map=11/34.7975/-119.2302 > ___ > 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
[Talk-us] Wilderness areas separate from forest?
If I am looking at the map data correctly, it seem that at least some designated wilderness areas are excluded from the forest that they are in. For example the Chumash Wilderness [1] seems to have its border as an outer on the Los Padres National Forest [2]. This does not seem correct to me. In this specific case the wilderness is administered as part of the Mt. Pinos Ranger District of the Los Padres National Forest. I believe the same situation exists with the San Mateo Wilderness in the Cleveland National Forest. What is our tagging policy on this? Should the wilderness be shown as part of the forest that contains it? (I realize there may be wilderness areas that cover multiple forests but the usual case is that a wilderness area is a subset of a forest both geographically and administratively. Comments? Thanks Tod [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2779216#map=12/34.7913/-119.1759 [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2784140#map=11/34.7975/-119.2302 signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
