[Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map

[Paul White]

Hello,

I recently added the (super complicated) Superior National Forest boundary
to OSM, because I noticed it was missing. However, it refuses to render on
the standard map, even though I ran it through JOSM's validator with no
problems. (link to relation)
 I
don't think it's due to the amount of members, because the Tongass National
Forest I added recently, with over 10,000 members, renders fine. And I know
it's not due to the tags on the relation; they are standard to other
national forests.

If someone could look into it and see what's causing it to break, that
would be great.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Coconino National Forest boundary isn't rendering anymore?

[Paul White]

Regarding the Coconino NF, if you zoom all the way to level 19, or export
the area as an image, the boundary disappears. It still appears on lower
zoom levels.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 6:21 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> The tiles that I can see are currently showing the boundary of the
> Coconino National Forest, which was last edited 24 days ago:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10956348#map=9/34.9479/-111.5195 -
> at what zoom level do you notice a problem?
>
> The Klamath National forest is not currently rendering on the Standard
> layer:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11239975#map=13/41.6816/-122.9490
> - loading it in JOSM, I see that It's tagged as leisure=nature_reserve +
> boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6 so we would expect it to render
> in the OpenStreetMap Carto style. The validator complains that there are
> nodes shared between parts of the outer ring. I thought this wasn't usually
> a problem which would prevent rendering, however?
>
> – Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:01 PM Paul White  wrote:
> >
> > Does anybody know why the Coconino National Forest doesn't render on
> osm.org anymore? I don't see any recent changes that would've messed
> anything up but it's gone. I also noticed that the Klamath National Forest
> is gone, as well.
> >
> > If anyone knows how to fix this, let me know.
> >
> > Paul
> > ___
> > 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

[Talk-us] Coconino National Forest boundary isn't rendering anymore?

[Paul White]

Does anybody know why the Coconino National Forest doesn't render on osm.org
anymore? I don't see any recent changes that would've messed anything up
but it's gone. I also noticed that the Klamath National Forest is gone, as
well.

If anyone knows how to fix this, let me know.

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Paul White]

*Sorry, forgot to send this to the mailing list...*

Thanks for the input. However, doesn't that violate "one feature, one OSM
element" ?
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element> I
believe we should stick with the inholding method, because separating
national forests into different relations complicates search features,
rendering, etc.

For most users, the proclamation boundary would be pretty useless if
ownership is already there. As Kevin noted, the proclamation boundary shows
an area that the government has been authorized to acquire land, and has
little impact on actual protection and land cover.

I'm glad to hear everyone's opinions and insight on this issue!

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 2:15 PM Paul White  wrote:

> Thanks for the input. However, doesn't that violate "one feature, one OSM
> element" ?
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element> I
> believe we should stick with the inholding method, because separating
> national forests into different relations complicates search features,
> rendering, etc.
>
> For most users, the proclamation boundary would be pretty useless if
> ownership is already there. As Kevin noted, the proclamation boundary shows
> an area that the government has been authorized to acquire land, and has
> little impact on actual protection and land cover.
>
> I'm glad to hear everyone's opinions and insight on this issue!
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 1:43 PM Adam Franco  wrote:
>
>> Three years ago I updated the tagging and relations
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45287531> of the Green Mountain
>> National Forest <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2030450> in
>> Vermont after some discussion in the Tagging list (start
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2017-January/016986.html>,
>> after
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2017-January/016994.html>
>> some comments from Kevin).  What I ended up doing is setting the outer
>> "proclamation boundary" as one relation
>> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2030450> tagged with 
>> boundary=national_park +
>> boundary_type=protected_area + protect_class=6 and the actual parcels
>> are a separate relation <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1610352>
>> tagged with boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6 (and
>> leisure=nature_reserve for rendering -- not sure if that is still
>> needed). Wilderness and recreation areas within the National Forest are not
>> members of the main parcel relation, but instead are their own
>> ways/relations with tagging that indicates the higher level of protection
>> in them such as protect_class=1b for wilderness areas (examples: Joseph
>> Battell Wilderness <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116060596>,  Big
>> Branch Wilderness <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116060601>) and
>> protect_class=5 for recreation areas (example: Moosalamoo National
>> Recreation Area <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1610350>).
>>
>> I can't say that this tagging is necessarily correct, but it has proven
>> to be pretty useful in a few ways:
>>
>>1. The "proclamation boundary" is a big area that provides an
>>appropriate name on low-zoom maps.
>>2. Having the parcel relation (with cut-outs for in-holdings) is
>>super useful when exploring the forest and wanting to be aware of the
>>potential for no-trespassing signage.
>>
>> I haven't looked at other National Forests in depth, but some in CO (like 
>> Roosevelt
>> National Forest <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/395767> and Pike
>> National Forest <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/393066>) are
>> just one big relation with boundary=national_park +
>> boundary_type=protected_area + protect_class=6  and no separate parcel
>> relations. If the actual outer "proclamation boundary" matches the main
>> extent of the parcels that is probably much simpler. In the case of the
>> Green Mountain National Forest the "proclamation boundary" almost never
>> matches the outer edge of the parcels, but covers a much wider area --
>> hence mapping both.
>>
>> Hope this helps!
>> Adam
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:08 PM brad  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 6/20/20 6:19 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I think we need both as well.  I've been doing this while watching the
>>> evolution of how we best 

[Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Paul White]

Hello everyone,

I wanted to get some opinions on how exactly National Forest boundaries
should appear in OSM.

Currently there are 2 ways national forest boundaries appear:

1. As simply the proclamation boundary, the original boundary authorized by
Congress, like Pike National Forest
.
This, of course, shows entire towns as protected like a National Forest.

2. A boundary that excludes lands not owned by the Forest Service,
therefore, only includes the land actually under the protection of the
National Forest. See Coconino National Forest.


The USFS describes it as such:

> “External boundary” refers to the perimeter boundaries of a national
> forest or grassland. In some cases, this boundary is also referred to as a
> “proclamation” boundary, or the outer boundary within which Congress
> authorized a particular national forest to be established.“Internal
> boundaries” are those boundaries located within the external boundaries
> that distinguish National Forest System lands from other lands (often
> referred to as inholdings).


Which one would be better? Looking forward to feedback.

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