On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:38 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> I've noticed that federal Wilderness areas in Northern California and
> Southern Oregon are mapped as if they are not part of the surrounding
> national forest(s).
>
> Is this correct mapping? On older USGS maps the Wilderness areas were
> always shown as being enclosed by the surrounding National Forest (or
> other Federal lands).
>
I thought I'd answered this, but I can't find it in my 'Sent' folder.
Forgive me if this turns out to be a duplicate message.
New York has only one (quite small) National Forest, so I can't comment
specifically on embedded wilderness areas in National Forests.
Nevertheless, we have a similar situation with Wilderness, Wild Forest,
Canoe Area, Primitive Area, etc. embedded in the Catskill and Adirondack
Parks. We already have those embedded areas set up with boundary=protected
area (example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6360488) with the
enclosing parks tagged with boundary=national_park (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1695394). The Wilderness areas enjoy
a stronger protection than the park as a whole, but are unquestionably a
part of it. I presume that's how embedded Wilderness in the National
Forests works, too?
Incidentally, I'm comfortable with boundary=national_park for the
Adirondack and Catskill Parks. The Federal government shares sovereignty
with the States, and New York created these two parks acting as a sovereign
entity. They enjoy stronger protection than the US National Parks - a
simple public law could revoke the latter, while the former are enshrined
in the state constitution and would require a constitutional amendment to
change them. They predate the National Park Service, by the way.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
