On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:11 PM Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> 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 to me that the new > mapping is correct. > > The new outer boundaries for the Superior National Forest are very complex > and only cover a small portion of the land within the National Forest outer > boundary: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11558095 > > Compare the official National Forest web map: > https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=03a17ac9df1a4cd0bcc872ac996e7231 > - this matches the older, simpler boundary that was in OpenStreetMap > previously. Also see this map on the Forest website: > https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MEDIA/stelprdb5130373.pdf > > It appears that the new, complex relation is attempting to map what land > is owned by the Federal government, rather than mapping the legal boundary > of the National Forest. Is that correct? > > I believe this is a misinterpretation of the meaning of > boundary=protected_area. > They're both 'legal' boundaries. The simple outer boundary of a National Forest is 'the area in which the Forest Service is authorized to purchase land without a new Act of Congress expanding the forest.' It's not signed in the field and has very little effect upon the actual land management. It's generally all that the enabling act of Congress specifies; the rest is done by having the law authorize the Executive Branch to determine the status of parcels within the legislated boundary. The outer boundary also generally excludes all 'inholdings' - private holdings that are enclosed by the national forest. It gives a more pleasant rendering at low zoom levels while still giving a sense of where the National Forest is, but does not reflect the situation in the field. The 'patchwork quilt' area is the area actually owned by the Federal Government and administered by the Forest Service. It's normally what will be posted in the field, and it's the area that actually enjoys the protection. For many Federally-administered land areas, there's also a third category: land on which the Federal government owns a conservation easement (essentially, the right to develop the land) but the land ownership (the right to exclude others) is private. There are huge pieces of wildlife refuges where Uncle Sam owns the hunting and development rights, but some farmer or forester owns and works the land. Most people in the general public would recognize only the most restrictive definition in the field, since that is what's signed. A duck hunter would look at an official map to see which of the private parcels comprising a wildlife refuge are open to the public for hunting in season. Very few people except the real estate lawyers care about the outermost boundary, except to give something that can yield a readable rendering on small-scale maps. I'm all for making the boundary follow the legal designation that has the greatest effect and is visibly signed. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
