On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 7:36 PM stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote:
> Adam Franco <adamfra...@gmail.com> writes: > > Here's an example: > > - Parent relation: > > - name=Xxxx National Forest > > - operator=United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service > > - ownership=national > > Ah, OK, If you really DO mean "parent" relation and we move into using > super-relations, got it; that's OK if it is what you mean to express, please > use the word "super-relation" (a relation of relations). In a > super-relation, the term "parent" can apply to "the" (root) of the > super-relation, and "a child relationship" happens between the "parent > super-relation" and each of the member relations (which are its "children"). > Thank you for making that explicit. I fully anticipated that a "more > correct" method to do this (complex NF data relationships in OSM) might > necessarily "move up" to super-relations, so here we go! I've been dealing with this level of complexity with New York State lands for a while. What I've done has worked fairly well for me. The legalities are similar to those for National Forests and other Federal protected lands; in many ways, the US system is based on New York's because Theodore Roosevelt brought it to Washington with him. (1) The outermost layers of the most complex cases are the Adirondack and Catskill Parks. These are labeled 'boundary=national_park' with a gratuitous 'protect_class=2'. They are massive areas: the Adirondack Park is comparable in land area to the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts. They are 'public-private partnerships', with most of the land remaining in private hands, but with land use and development very closely regulated. They are indeed mapped, because they are well known and very well marked: all the highways that cross them have prominent signage like https://www.wamc.org/sites/wamc/files/styles/medium/public/201507/adirondack-park-sign-dscn4503.jpg or https://tinyurl.com/y9otnrb5. Moreover, all the informational highway signs (facilities, exits, street names, route number markers, ...) change from their ordinary color schemes (black-and-white, white-and-green, white-and-blue, yellow-and-blue, ...) to a distinctive brown-and-gold scheme: https://mylonglake.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/IMG_7731-Raquette-Lake-Old-Forge-Long-Lake.jpg https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Marcy-Field-Parking-Area-sign-by-John-Warren-300x241.png http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19690161i1.jpg. (2) Within these areas, there are areas that the state owns in allodium (I'd say 'in fee simple' but the state is sovereign and its title is allodial; there is no higher authority other than The People.) All of the state-owned lands fall under Article 14 of the state constitution, which begins: "The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed." They have no permanent habitation. The larger contiguous ones are generally designated, "Wilderness", but then there is a whole zoo of other classifications: "Wild Forest", "Canoe Area", "Primitive Area", "Intensive Use Area", ... These are mapped as boundary=protected_area and usually leisure=nature_reserve (but sometimes they're other things, such as campgrounds, ski areas, fish hatcheries, recreation grounds, ... and are mapped accordingly). Many of these areas, particularly the Wild Forests, are extraordinarily diffuse. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6360587 is typical. They are full of exclaves and inholdings. They're all open to public recreation, and signed and posted wherever they're near a habitation, a highway, or an established trail. (They may be marked with just survey blazes, cairns and witness trees in the back country - and some of the lines have not actually ever been surveyed. The Adirondacks are like that!) Where the areas share a boundary, or where the outer boundary of one of the areas is the same as the boundary of one of the great parks, I've been trying to replace multiple, questionably-aligned boundaries with shared ways. I've not got very far. For instance - and I've not done this yet - there is a segment across Lake Desolation Road at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/43.1581/-73.9705&layers=N that is simultaneously the outer boundary of the Adirondack Park, the Wilcox Lake Wild Forest, and the Lake Desolation State Forest. I'd think that that segment should be drawn only once and present with the 'outer' role on each of those three multipolygons. The topology of these multipolygons can be horribly complex. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32023837 is: (1) an islet. (2) An iner way of Middle Saranac Lake. (3) An outer way of the Saranac Lakes Wild Forest, of which much of MIddle Saranac Lake is an inner way. Norway Island's relation to Saranac Lakes WIld Forest is therefore that it is an outer way within an inner way within an outer way. That all works. It sometimes gets pretty bizarre: Camp Santanoni Historic Area https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6396527 comprises four sites that were once part of that huge estate, together with the right-of-way of Newcomb Lake Road, part of which would otherwise form the boundary between the High Peaks Wilderness and the Vanderwhacker Mountain Wild Forest. So you wind up with this strung-out multipolygon with hard-to-read multipolygon relations on either side. I can't say that I like this sort of thing, but it pretty faithfully reproduces what's in the field. The diffuse multipolygons don't generalize all that well at low zoom levels, but I don't think there's a really good solution to that. It is what it is. (3) If I were to try to represent these inner mutipolygons as being ''part of" the Adirondack Park, there would be no way to do that with a topologically correct multipolygon, and it would be incorrect to try to do it by cutting out the villages, farms and mines in the park - the villagers are proud of living in the park! I'd have to resort to a superrelation of another type. I think that the poorly-understood 'site' relation https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:site might be appropriate, but it is indeed poorly understood: at least I understand it poorly! (It appears to have been used primarily by two European imports, for very specialized purposes.) (4) The 'Congressionally authorized boundary' of Federal lands is similar to the outer boundary of New York's two great parks except that it is considerably weaker. It generally imposes no restrictions on the land use where the Federal government does not own the land. It's generally unsigned and unmarked. In the field, you'd hardly know that it's there, unless you're a landowner looking to sell. (In many cases, land sales inside these boundaries give the Feds the right of first refusal - the idea is that it isn't a Fifth Amendment 'taking' if the government pays a fair price, and a price that a willing buyer and a willing seller negotiated is _ipso facto_ presumed to be fair. For this reason, I've not attempted to map these boundaries. (Also, because the handful in New York have been mapped by others, and I'm perfectly happy to let their boundaries be Someone Else's Problem.) It may be different in areas that I haven't visited, but as far as I can tell, 'Green Mountain National Forest' has its signage placed at the boundaries of the Government-owned land, not at the boundaries of the Congressional authorization-to-acquire. (5) The National Forest and BLM cases (fortunately for me, not the New York State ones, with a few exceptions that I ignore because they're temporary) are further complicated by the fact that these lands can contain mining claims and private leaseholds, where the miners and ranchers rent the land with the government as landlord, and are authorized to exclude trespassers. I have Absolutely No Idea what to do with this case, except to surmise that map users looking at the boundaries are more likely to be recreationists looking at public lands with an eye toward visiting them, rather than prospectors looking for opportunities or statisticians looking to tabulate how much of the land is under government ownership. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
