On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 7:34 PM brad wrote:
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
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 7:34 PM brad wrote:
> 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
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 Sep 1, 2020, at 2:46 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> 'Private' vs 'public' hits near the mark, but not in the gold. I was trying
> to be precise when I said that the property line determines the protected
> status and the public access constraints. A public-access nature reserve
> operated by an
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:14 PM stevea wrote:
> Here I weigh-in with what I believe to be a crucial distinction between
> "cadastral data which are privately owned" and "data which can be
> characterized as cadastral, but which are publicly owned and are often used
> for recreation, hiking and
Here I weigh-in with what I believe to be a crucial distinction between
"cadastral data which are privately owned" and "data which can be characterized
as cadastral, but which are publicly owned and are often used for recreation,
hiking and similar human activities."
Joseph, many others in
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 9:03 AM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 01.09.20 14:40, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > We don't map cadastre at least partly out of respect for personal
> > privacy - something that is not at issue with government-owned land.
>
> I think I'm with Joseph here, we don't map cadastre stuff
>Protect area and National Park boundaries were supposed to be less difficult
>to confirm and more valid.
The NF administrative boundaries are basically impossible to verify
on-the-ground if that's the standard we are setting to demonstrate
verifiability. Typically, the only indication are the
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:52 AM Bradley White
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
Hi,
On 01.09.20 14:40, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> We don't map cadastre at least partly out of respect for personal
> privacy - something that is not at issue with government-owned land.
I think I'm with Joseph here, we don't map cadastre stuff also because
it makes no sense for us to become a copy
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:18 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> The OpenStreetMap community has long agreed that mapping cadastral parcels
> (land ownership) is not in scope. Protect area and National Park boundaries
> were supposed to be less difficult to confirm and more valid.
>
> But if what we are
The OpenStreetMap community has long agreed that mapping cadastral parcels
(land ownership) is not in scope. Protect area and National Park boundaries
were supposed to be less difficult to confirm and more valid.
But if what we are going to start mapping in the USA is simply the federal
ownership
>
> 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.
Privately owned land within a NF
Kevin Kenny wrote:
> They're both 'legal' boundaries.
(and more).
Thank you, Kevin. Finally, this is written in a manner that allows me to
understand it and I do now. Whew!
THEN, there is how OSM might ultimately remedy this (by specifying — good
example wiki diagrams can go miles here —
But the Forest Service itself is showing the outer boundary on it's
websites, as I've mentioned above. On the higher resolution web map, there
is only a faint difference in lighter green / darker green color to show
which land within the official boundary is privately or federally owned,
and this
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:11 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> I believe there might be an issue with these complex multipolygons which
> is preventing osm2pgsql from handling them. Perhaps it is because nodes are
> shared between two outer rings?
>
> However, I also want to note that it is not clear
I believe there might be an issue with these complex multipolygons which is
preventing osm2pgsql from handling them. Perhaps it is because nodes are
shared between two outer rings?
However, I also want to note that it is not clear to me that the new
mapping is correct.
The new outer boundaries
Paul,
I don't have a definitive answer for you, but rendering usually takes a
while for large areas. I would expect it to render when zoomed in but
wasn't able to see any rendering on a couple of spot checks. I did notice
that around islands either the forest or the island, are shifted. I would
Hello,
I recently added the (super complicated) Superior National Forest boundary
to OSM, because I noticed it was missing. However, it refuses to render on
the standard map, even though I ran it through JOSM's validator with no
problems. (link to relation)
19 matches
Mail list logo
