Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries
Thank you Bradley, Mike and brad for the fascinating insights, clarifications and continuing discussion. I did not realize that this sort of boundary / ownership / administration / distinctions with private inholdings was anywhere near this complex: that "Congressional Boundary" thing I find quite a curve ball. I think OSM can accommodate both "kinds" of boundaries, but I'm not presently sure how best to do so. I am glad to learn of the distinctions. And of course, when we talk about public "land owned by the USFS," what we really mean is "land owned by the People, and managed for us properly, under law, BY our federal employees, the USFS." I retreat to more of a "watching mode" to see if more discussion shakes out of this. Again, it is fascinating. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries
I've been struggling with this for roads. Unfortunately on the ground survey is the best. There are a few cases where property owners have put up illegal, or very misleading signs. The motor vehicle use map (MVUM) is helpful, but usually not accurate outside NF boundary, but maybe good for a small inholding. I've come up to private no trespassing signs many places on my rides. Some counties have official maps (Ouray, CO), but I think most do not. This reminds me that I need to prod my own county again, I asked them for clarification on some roads which are shown as county roads on the county assessors map, but posted no trespassing. The national map viewer, and the BLM map viewer are not very good. I think they may have the same data that was imported into OSM with the tiger import. On 6/23/20 8:17 AM, Mike Thompson wrote: On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:08 AM Bradley White mailto:theangrytom...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > Somewhat related, in the cases where an official FS road or trail crosses private property, does the FS have an easement, or is it kind of an informal arrangement? > > Best way to know for sure is ground survey, but generally USFS system > roads & trails (also available for viewing using the USFS data extract > tool) over private land are public easements. If a section of the > system road/trail 'disappears' over a piece of land, it might not be > open to the public. An on-the-ground survey is usually required in > those cases. Thanks again. On the ground survey shows nothing more than an official looking USFS TH sign/board. There are no signs indicating one is crossing private property, nor are there signs indicating one must stay on the trail. After about a half mile of hiking one does come to several of those yellow property boundary signs. County level data does show the initial part of the trail to be on private property. Just curious as in other cases landowners have posted "no trespassing" signs blocking trails. Mike ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:08 AM Bradley White wrote: > > > Somewhat related, in the cases where an official FS road or trail crosses private property, does the FS have an easement, or is it kind of an informal arrangement? > > Best way to know for sure is ground survey, but generally USFS system > roads & trails (also available for viewing using the USFS data extract > tool) over private land are public easements. If a section of the > system road/trail 'disappears' over a piece of land, it might not be > open to the public. An on-the-ground survey is usually required in > those cases. Thanks again. On the ground survey shows nothing more than an official looking USFS TH sign/board. There are no signs indicating one is crossing private property, nor are there signs indicating one must stay on the trail. After about a half mile of hiking one does come to several of those yellow property boundary signs. County level data does show the initial part of the trail to be on private property. Just curious as in other cases landowners have posted "no trespassing" signs blocking trails. Mike ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries
> Somewhat related, in the cases where an official FS road or trail crosses > private property, does the FS have an easement, or is it kind of an informal > arrangement? Best way to know for sure is ground survey, but generally USFS system roads & trails (also available for viewing using the USFS data extract tool) over private land are public easements. If a section of the system road/trail 'disappears' over a piece of land, it might not be open to the public. An on-the-ground survey is usually required in those cases. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:59 AM Bradley White wrote: > > > While it certainly may exist, I'm not aware of a disparity between the "congressionally declared boundary" and any other boundary of a NF, including "physical land that the NF actually owns and manages." How would anyone know where this latter boundary is? > > The declared boundaries are administrative boundaries that limit the > extent in which each NF *may* manage land, but only land owned by the > USFS within these boundaries is actually protected at > 'protect_class=6' criteria. Both of these boundaries are available for > download using the USFS Data Extract tool, and specifically in > California, the surface ownership boundary of each national forest is > included in the CPAD database. They can also usually be verified on > the ground by yellow NF property markers, as stated previously. In > fact, it is the congressionally declared boundary that is impossible > to verify on the ground. > > Having lived in multiple places within a "declared" NF boundary, the > NF affords no protection on the land I have lived on. There might be > some extra hoops to jump through when pulling permits, but that > certainly isn't enough to include it within a 'protect_class=6' > boundary. Thanks for the clear explanation. That conforms to my understanding. If anything, owning property in a NF puts on obligation on the FS, not the land owner. Specifically the FS has to allow the landowner access to the property if it can't be obtained in any other manner. Somewhat related, in the cases where an official FS road or trail crosses private property, does the FS have an easement, or is it kind of an informal arrangement? If we can't have both in OSM, including only US Gov owned lands in the National Forests is preferable in my opinion. Mike > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries
> While it certainly may exist, I'm not aware of a disparity between the > "congressionally declared boundary" and any other boundary of a NF, including > "physical land that the NF actually owns and manages." How would anyone know > where this latter boundary is? The declared boundaries are administrative boundaries that limit the extent in which each NF *may* manage land, but only land owned by the USFS within these boundaries is actually protected at 'protect_class=6' criteria. Both of these boundaries are available for download using the USFS Data Extract tool, and specifically in California, the surface ownership boundary of each national forest is included in the CPAD database. They can also usually be verified on the ground by yellow NF property markers, as stated previously. In fact, it is the congressionally declared boundary that is impossible to verify on the ground. Having lived in multiple places within a "declared" NF boundary, the NF affords no protection on the land I have lived on. There might be some extra hoops to jump through when pulling permits, but that certainly isn't enough to include it within a 'protect_class=6' boundary. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
