Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging
I definitely think it's a matter of permission and opening hours, the polygon where this permission apply is secondary, could it be an admin boundary or reserve of some kind. Let the case where no boundary exists yet in OSM, then map it. Yves Le 21 octobre 2016 15:45:26 GMT+02:00, Kevin Kenny a écrit : > That's rather a simplistic view. Hunting reserves exist to protect the >land from development so that there will be places where it is possible >to >hunt and game available to harvest. The important distinction isn't the >one >between 'hunting reserve' and 'wilderness'; it's the one between >'reserve >land' and 'suburbia.' > >In most of the conservation lands in my part of the world, hunting is >permitted, even encouraged, because it is necessary to thin the herds. >Since humanity drove the wolf and cougar into extinction in my part of >the >world a century and a half ago (and so far will not allow the wolf to >be >reintroduced, even in strictly protected wilderness), hunting is >necessary >to avoid ecological collapse from overpopulation of the larger game >species, notably the white-tailed deer, the black bear, and local >nonmigratory populations of geese. Most of the hunters that I know >understand very well the value of conservation, and few would say that >hunting reserves exist for the primary purpose of supporting hunting. > >The state not only owns lands for this purpose, but also encourages >this >style of management on the part of private landowners. My brother gets >substantial tax breaks on the farm he owns because my family has >allowed it >to return to woodland. (It hasn't been farmed since the Dust Bowl >years.) >In return, he's required both to refrain from farming it and to refrain >from subdividing or developing. He is permitted the occasional timber >harvest (the plan for which must be approved by a forester) and to use >the >land for hunting (he's not much of a hunter, but leases the hunting >rights >to a club), fishing, and recreation (a snowmobile/ATV trail crosses his >acreage). Given that the state is compensating him to conserve his land >and >practice sustainable forestry, how is his private preserve not >conservation >land? Does the fact that people pay the club to hunt on the club's >leaseholds (an area much larger than my brother's farm) change the >nature >of my brother's conservation easement? > >His deal with the government is typical. A lot of people get something >out >of it. New York City gets better water quality in the Watsonville >reservoir. A few hunters, fishermen, and snowmobilists get a place to >recreate. The National Park Service gets protection of the Delaware >River >viewshed. The poor soil that remains is stabilized against further >erosion >and gradually rebuilt by the natural processes that have been going on >since it was denuded in the last ice age. Brook trout and shad find a >place >to spawn. Several threatened bird species have been sighted on his >property. Most important to him, he can afford the taxes to continue >living >in the place. Without the conservation easement, he'd have been forced >to >sell to a developer and move back to the city years ago. > >Nature reserves are managed for many purposes, and enjoy greater and >lesser >levels of protection. New York is fortunate enough to have them in >abundance. Some are enormous and strictly protected (e.g., High Peaks >Wilderness). Some are tiny (as small as a few city blocks of wetland in >New >York City). Some belong to Federal, State and local governments. Some >are >in private hands - the International Paper tract in Arietta township is >the >largest. (It allows public access for recreation anywhere that active >logging is not taking place, and it takes a forester's eye to >distinguish >it from the adjacent Jessup River Wild Forest.) Some belong to >conservancies (and for complicated legal reasons, sometimes it is >convenient for New York to pay conservancies to acquire and manage >land). >Some allow only the most passive of activities (access by foot, ski, >and >canoe, in terrain that only fit and experienced outdoor recreationists >will >tackle). Some restrict only development and allow motorized recreation, >timber harvest, and low-density habitation. > >All are popularly known as 'nature reserves' of one sort or another. I >daresay that around here, few people can make the distinction, for >instance, between Wilderness Area, Wild Forest, State Forest, State >Wildlife Management Area, and even State Park. To the tourist, they >look >identical - they all have the same style of brown-and-gold signs, they >are >all open to the public, they are all mostly forested (because that's >the >natural state of most land in the local ecosystem), they all belong to >the >state and are policed by the rangers, The fact that they are >managed >for different primary objectives and fall under different regulatory >schemes is secondary - most people deal with the regulation by >following >what the
Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Craig Wallace wrote: > > > But that is different from an area is managed primarily to benefit > hunting. eg if they are keeping deer numbers artificially high (feeding > over winter, or breeding), just to allow as many as possible to be shot. > Despite the damage this causes to vegetation and other wildlife. Nobody around here raises deer. We get far more deer than the ecosystem will support as it is - they show up everywhere as nuisance wildlife. Game farms such as you describe may exist, but none of the hunting reserves that I personally have tagged are among them. The closest thing to that model that I have tagged is that the state operates fish hatcheries and a pheasant breeding farm for the purpose of restocking over-harvested species. (The current model that the state has for the pheasant is that they will release captive-bred pheasant into the wildlife management areas, to protect more vulnerable and less tasty species such as grouse.) My apologies if I'm duplicating messages here. I'm having a problem with some intermediate agent in the mail chain rewriting my 'from' address so that I'm getting messages held for moderator approval. I'm also having problems with the touchpad on my laptop sometimes going crazy and spontaneously registering taps and I think that at least one half-composed message may have inadvertently been sent. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging
That's rather a simplistic view. Hunting reserves exist to protect the land from development so that there will be places where it is possible to hunt and game available to harvest. The important distinction isn't the one between 'hunting reserve' and 'wilderness'; it's the one between 'reserve land' and 'suburbia.' In most of the conservation lands in my part of the world, hunting is permitted, even encouraged, because it is necessary to thin the herds. Since humanity drove the wolf and cougar into extinction in my part of the world a century and a half ago (and so far will not allow the wolf to be reintroduced, even in strictly protected wilderness), hunting is necessary to avoid ecological collapse from overpopulation of the larger game species, notably the white-tailed deer, the black bear, and local nonmigratory populations of geese. Most of the hunters that I know understand very well the value of conservation, and few would say that hunting reserves exist for the primary purpose of supporting hunting. The state not only owns lands for this purpose, but also encourages this style of management on the part of private landowners. My brother gets substantial tax breaks on the farm he owns because my family has allowed it to return to woodland. (It hasn't been farmed since the Dust Bowl years.) In return, he's required both to refrain from farming it and to refrain from subdividing or developing. He is permitted the occasional timber harvest (the plan for which must be approved by a forester) and to use the land for hunting (he's not much of a hunter, but leases the hunting rights to a club), fishing, and recreation (a snowmobile/ATV trail crosses his acreage). Given that the state is compensating him to conserve his land and practice sustainable forestry, how is his private preserve not conservation land? Does the fact that people pay the club to hunt on the club's leaseholds (an area much larger than my brother's farm) change the nature of my brother's conservation easement? His deal with the government is typical. A lot of people get something out of it. New York City gets better water quality in the Watsonville reservoir. A few hunters, fishermen, and snowmobilists get a place to recreate. The National Park Service gets protection of the Delaware River viewshed. The poor soil that remains is stabilized against further erosion and gradually rebuilt by the natural processes that have been going on since it was denuded in the last ice age. Brook trout and shad find a place to spawn. Several threatened bird species have been sighted on his property. Most important to him, he can afford the taxes to continue living in the place. Without the conservation easement, he'd have been forced to sell to a developer and move back to the city years ago. Nature reserves are managed for many purposes, and enjoy greater and lesser levels of protection. New York is fortunate enough to have them in abundance. Some are enormous and strictly protected (e.g., High Peaks Wilderness). Some are tiny (as small as a few city blocks of wetland in New York City). Some belong to Federal, State and local governments. Some are in private hands - the International Paper tract in Arietta township is the largest. (It allows public access for recreation anywhere that active logging is not taking place, and it takes a forester's eye to distinguish it from the adjacent Jessup River Wild Forest.) Some belong to conservancies (and for complicated legal reasons, sometimes it is convenient for New York to pay conservancies to acquire and manage land). Some allow only the most passive of activities (access by foot, ski, and canoe, in terrain that only fit and experienced outdoor recreationists will tackle). Some restrict only development and allow motorized recreation, timber harvest, and low-density habitation. All are popularly known as 'nature reserves' of one sort or another. I daresay that around here, few people can make the distinction, for instance, between Wilderness Area, Wild Forest, State Forest, State Wildlife Management Area, and even State Park. To the tourist, they look identical - they all have the same style of brown-and-gold signs, they are all open to the public, they are all mostly forested (because that's the natural state of most land in the local ecosystem), they all belong to the state and are policed by the rangers, The fact that they are managed for different primary objectives and fall under different regulatory schemes is secondary - most people deal with the regulation by following what the signage proclaims. (State Wildlife Management Area, by the way, is a newer title for what used to be called State Game Reserves. They are very much hunting preserves.) I see 'leisure=nature_reserve" as an interim measure to get something on the map when its full legalities are not understood, and I also continue to tag it because otherwise a great many of our public recreation areas would not appear on the rendered
Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging
On 2016-10-21 14:07, Greg Troxel wrote: Craig Wallace writes: I think this is wrong. A nature reserve an area to protect wildlife, not to allow it to be shot. A nature reserve is managed for the purposes of conservation. So if an area is primarily for hunting, it is not a nature reserve. I think you are off here. Nature is complicated, and "preserving nature" is too. There's a long tradition of wildlife management areas where hunting is allowed (subject to seasons and limits, set by state wildlife biologists). In these, while deer and geese are taken, the area remains natural, and the vegetation is somewhat protected from overbrowsing by deer. And, killing individual deer is not bad for the species. Around me, and I'm sure around Kevin, as soon as there are areas that aren't paved over, there are too many deer compared to historical norms. Around me, "Wildlife Management Areas" don't feel different from "Conservation Areas", except that there are a few weeks you should be wearing orange or avoiding them. I am near a federal Wildlife Refuge -- and deer hunting is allowed, in order to keep the population somewhat under control and protect the vegetation and other species. Yes, a nature reserve may allow some hunting, to control numbers of particular species. But that is different from an area is managed primarily to benefit hunting. eg if they are keeping deer numbers artificially high (feeding over winter, or breeding), just to allow as many as possible to be shot. Despite the damage this causes to vegetation and other wildlife. And these hunting areas often have misleading names. eg they claim to be a 'reserve', when its more like a farm. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging
Craig Wallace writes: > I think this is wrong. A nature reserve an area to protect wildlife, > not to allow it to be shot. A nature reserve is managed for the > purposes of conservation. So if an area is primarily for hunting, it > is not a nature reserve. I think you are off here. Nature is complicated, and "preserving nature" is too. There's a long tradition of wildlife management areas where hunting is allowed (subject to seasons and limits, set by state wildlife biologists). In these, while deer and geese are taken, the area remains natural, and the vegetation is somewhat protected from overbrowsing by deer. And, killing individual deer is not bad for the species. Around me, and I'm sure around Kevin, as soon as there are areas that aren't paved over, there are too many deer compared to historical norms. Around me, "Wildlife Management Areas" don't feel different from "Conservation Areas", except that there are a few weeks you should be wearing orange or avoiding them. I am near a federal Wildlife Refuge -- and deer hunting is allowed, in order to keep the population somewhat under control and protect the vegetation and other species. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging
On 2016-10-20 16:33, Kevin Kenny wrote: Since nobody else has stepped forward to answer this, as far as I can tell, let me take a whack at it: I think that the best tagging for a hunting reserve that the current renderer knows about is 'leisure=nature_reserve". That's how the state wildlife management areas in New York, the State Game Lands in Pennsylvania, and so on are tagged. 'Nature reserves' encompass a lot of things. I think this is wrong. A nature reserve an area to protect wildlife, not to allow it to be shot. A nature reserve is managed for the purposes of conservation. So if an area is primarily for hunting, it is not a nature reserve. Yes, it is rendered on the map, but this an example of tagging (incorrectly) for the renderer. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
