On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 3:10 PM Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not all of the land within US National Forests is owned by the US Government, 
> there are private "inholdings" [1].
>
> The boundaries between government land and private land are often marked by 
> signs, e.g.[2]  The above photo is geotagged, and if you drag it into JOSM 
> you can see that it is quite far from the overall National Forest boundary as 
> currently depicted in OSM[3].
>
> The wiki mentions "inholdings", but it is not clear how these should be 
> mapped[4].
>
> How should these be mapped?
> access=private/permissive?
> ownership=private?

New York has a precisely parallel situation, with government-owned,
public-access land that has private inholdings. (Or odd cases where
the inholdings belong to a county or municipality, or to a different
government department.)


At present, I don't specifically map the inholdings - eventually they
probably ought to have mapping for some combination of landuse and
landcover. Instead, I simply have them as inner ways in the
multipolygon that represents the forest (or wilderness area, or park,
or whatever).

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6362588 is a typical complex
case where a forest has both inholdings and exclaves. Many of the Wild
Forest areas in the Adirondack and Catskill Parks are similarly
diffuse.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6360488 is a large wilderness
area that is considerably more compact, but still has some inholdings,
as well as travel corridors for certain roads.

Of course, if an inholding is also an identifiable feature that
deserves tagging on its own, then it gets tagged.  The Rollins Pond
campground https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429190169 has an outer
way that is also an inner way of the Saranac Lakes Wild Forest
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6362702

Mappers across the border in Vermont seem to have been approaching the
problem in the same way for National Forests. The Green Mountain
National Forest https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1610352 is a
multipolygon that has a great many inner ways, one of which is tagged
separately as the George D. Aiken Wilderness
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116060605.  (This is a case where
I'm not positive that the mapping is right; I thought that the Aiken
Wilderness was part of the GMNF, but the topology seems to indicate
that it exists independently. Not my turf; I'll let the locals deal
with it.)

This practice can handle cases of almost unlimited weirdness, sich as
a National Park corridor that partly traverses a State Park, but is
itself broken up by rights-of-way for roads and power lines.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6523267

By the way, I also make cutouts if I know that a right-of-way is NOT
part of the feature being mapped.  Woodland Valley Road,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20213204, although it exists as an
easement for the inholding to the west, is part of the campground, and
it's obvious when you're driving it that you're "in" the campground.
By contrast, Red Hill Road where it runs through the Dinch Road unit
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6304739 remains the property of
the Department of Transportation, not the Bureau of Water Supply, and
there's a distinct sense that you're leaving and re-entering the
forest unit when you cross the road. Stewart State Forest
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6367564 is cut away for the
rights-of-way of the power line and the state and county roads, but
not for the logging roads or the residential access easement to the
east.

This tagging practice is controversial, and many mappers feel that I
should conjoin the regions if the forest unit exists on both sides of
the highway. I'm following the practice of the managing agencies.

(Ignore the alignment problems on the highways in these examples for
now. The cadastre in this part of the world is ... approximate. I'm
doing what I can with the data I've got.)

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

Reply via email to