On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:38 AM Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> 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
