On Sep 1, 2020, at 2:46 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> 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 NGO (such as a private conservancy or land trust - there are > quite a few in my part of the world) deserves the same treatment as a > government-run one.
Thank you for pointing out this distinction, Kevin. It certainly exists, such as in abundance in New York state where you have mapped these distinctions extensively. As I was talking about the specific case of National Forests (and their odd "dual boundary" nature), I did not mean to exclude other (e.g. NGO) kinds of ownership in the greater realm of mapping. However, in the distinct case of National Forests, the distinction between public and private (for "smaller, actually owned" polygon components vs. "larger, potentially own-able without additional Congressional legislation" polygon components) remains true. So while I do not "hit the gold" in all cases, but I think the public-private distinction (along with the pesky "Congress has authorized further acquisitions out to HERE" outer-outer polygon) accurately captures what we're trying to better understand, better map and better render in the case of National Forests, I happy accept your "adjustment or correction." Nicely, I believe we are both correct! SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
