Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 24, 2020, 00:31 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 23. Jun 2020, at 17:20, Joseph Eisenberg  
>> wrote:
>>
>> In other countries, how are National Park and other protected_area 
>> boundaries determined? If there are villages or towns within the boundary, 
>> are they actually protected? Are they excluded from the area?
>>
>
>
> in Italy or Germany, the boundaries of protected areas typically either 
> exclude builtup areas or if they are included, there are typically explicit 
> special explanations/provisions for these areas. (there might be exceptions 
> to this, but this is what I have seen).
>
In Poland builtup areas are rarely included into national park, nature reserves 
etc
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1984482#map=16/49.5389/20.2076=N
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10907997#map=15/49.6109/19.5171

But sometimes small villages may be included, see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2226518#map=16/49.3119/20.0665=N

I am not sure about legal implications.

There are also areas called "Lamdscape Parks" ("Park Krajobrazowy") with very 
weak protections
that may include builtup areas and some regulations specifically target 
building construction restrictions
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4519978#map=15/50.0696/19.8576
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4519929#map=13/50.1526/19.9249
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

[Andrew Harvey]

Here in Australia they started off as rough areas based on local knowledge
and signage on the ground but now have mostly been replaced with imported
open data from the government.These legally declared boundaries are usually
declared based on parcels from the cadastre and so the open data usually
matches up with the cadastral polygons. A lot of these boundaries came from
CAPAD data https://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/capad which is a
federal level database which collates a lot of the federal and state based
protected areas in Australia.

If the parcel is privately owned it'll usually be excluded from the
national park, eg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-33.79587/151.15666 where
you can see houses sandwiched between national park boundaries.

It even goes so far to exclude some road corridors which aren't legally
part of the national park, even though most people would consider
themselves to be in the national park when driving through. As can be seen
at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-34.15149/151.03035 these road
corridors don't even align with where the actual road was built, but that
could be an error in the cadastre data, anyway this is all beside the point.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 01:20, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> On the Talk-US mailing list, other mappers from the USA have been
> discussing how National Forest boundaries should be mapped.
>
> There is now generally consensus that these should be tagged
> boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6 but there are 2 possible lines to
> follow:
>
> 1) The boundary declared by Congress (the legislature), which includes
> large areas of private land and whole towns in many cases
>
> 2) The actual land owned by the Federal Government of the United States
> within that declared boundary.
>
> The argument in favor of the second is that the privately-owned land
> within the boundary has no actual protection against development. For
> example, I lived in a village which was within the declared boundaries of
> the Klamath National Forest, but the development rules were determined by
> the County government and they were mostly the same as if we were not in
> the boundary (I think?)
>
> In other countries, how are National Park and other protected_area
> boundaries determined? If there are villages or towns within the boundary,
> are they actually protected? Are they excluded from the area?
>
> – Joseph Eisenberg
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:48 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:
>
> when I write „protected area“, this often will have implications like you
may not construct buildings, you may not walk off roads and paths, you may
not pick plants (e.g. flowers) and mushrooms, log trees, hunt, light a
fire, etc., while otherwise in Germany you have generally the right to walk
on any „unused“ land in the open landscape (regardless of ownership), and
often the owners may not even fence their property (like woods) or forbid
entering their property, with the exception of young plantings, so
protected areas tend to have more restrictions for the visitors than the
rest of the country. In Scandinavian countries you even have the right to
go fishing or set up a fire or tent on someone else’s property, within
certain limits: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
Generally in a US National Forest (where the US Federal Government owns the
land) you are free to travel anywhere on foot.  You can camp (for a limited
time) anywhere as long as it is a certain distance away from waterways and
established roads. Although vehicles are legally required to stay on
designated numbered roads, this is often not enforced.  Hunting and fishing
are allowed as long as long as one has a license from the state, just like
almost anywhere else in the state (some states may allow landowners to hunt
on their own land without a license).  Camp fires are allowed unless there
is a ban due to dry conditions. You can cut and remove firewood with a
permit and after paying a small fee.  You can log trees if you have
purchased the rights to a particular stand of timber from the Federal
Government.  There are exceptions to all of the above, particularly in
areas that have become very popular with the public.

Mike
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

[Rob Savoye]

On 6/23/20 4:45 PM, Mike Thompson wrote:

> Interesting.  I had always assumed that the land that a mining claim
> covered continued to be owned by the Federal Government, but that the
> claim holder had the right to extract minerals and hopefully an
> obligation to pay the Federal Government some royalties if they were
> successful.  

  What happened is some mining claims were mostly exploratory, and often
didn't find anything worth extracting. There was a process to convert
public land to private land. My documents are from 1903, and signed by
President William Harrison. I also have to pay annual rent for my access
road from the Forest Service, and do all the road maintainance. This is
very common around here in the Rockies.

  I totally agree about camping issue, but I make personal data files
from the USFS landowner data, or County parcel data. I've been climbing
in Wyoming, where people greet you with guns if you're in the wrong place...

> I know exactly what you are talking about, but apparently it is some
> international standard that national forest like areas are called
> protected areas and assigned a certain level of protection, even if in
> reality they are less protected than if they were privately owned.

  Something I learned many years ago when I was caretaker of a very
large cattle ranch is that unless your no trespassing signs are every
430ft, you can't enforce anything. A jeep club once had a rally in our
summer pasture, and destroyed a wetland at 10,000ft in the process, and
there was nothing we could do about it. It was on land leased from the
Forest Service for grazing. The only protected areas around here are the
wilderness areas.

- rob -

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

when I write „protected area“, this often will have implications like you may 
not construct buildings, you may not walk off roads and paths, you may not pick 
plants (e.g. flowers) and mushrooms, log trees, hunt, light a fire, etc., while 
otherwise in Germany you have generally the right to walk on any „unused“ land 
in the open landscape (regardless of ownership), and often the owners may not 
even fence their property (like woods) or forbid entering their property, with 
the exception of young plantings, so protected areas tend to have more 
restrictions for the visitors than the rest of the country. In Scandinavian 
countries you even have the right to go fishing or set up a fire or tent on 
someone else’s property, within certain limits: 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:40 AM Rob Savoye  wrote:
>
>
>   The rural area I live in is full of old mining claims, which are
> private property surrounded by public land.
Interesting.  I had always assumed that the land that a mining claim
covered continued to be owned by the Federal Government, but that the claim
holder had the right to extract minerals and hopefully an obligation to pay
the Federal Government some royalties if they were successful.

>   My nearby hamlet of <200 people is also surrounded by national forest.
> The forest is not "protected" at all, it's full of trails and jeep
> roads. A few of the larger ranchers have fencing, but it's a bit of a
> free for all elsewhere...
I know exactly what you are talking about, but apparently it is some
international standard that national forest like areas are called protected
areas and assigned a certain level of protection, even if in reality they
are less protected than if they were privately owned.

Mike
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:21 AM Adam Franco  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:40 AM Rob Savoye  wrote:
>>
>> [...] While I do use parcel maps on fire calls, adding all these
boundaries to OSM would be silly. I agree that mapping the outer boundary
is all that's needed.
>
>
> My main use of maps of National Forests is planning backcountry trips
that include dispersed camping. Knowing which parts are actually
owned/administered by the Forest Service is really important information. I
don't want to plan a whole trip only to discover when I hike in that my
ideal riverside camping destination is actually on a private inholding
posted with No Trespassing signs and that I'll need to hike a few more
hours to get back onto a FS-parcel where camping is allowed.
A similar situation happened to me recently, albeit with hiking rather than
camping.  I had intended to do a loop hike, but as I was nearing the
completion of the loop, just a mile from where I had parked, I encountered
a No Trespassing sign and had to turn around and retrace my steps adding
many miles to the hike.  On this particular day I didn't mind the extra
miles, but the situation could have been different.

Mike
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Jun 2020, at 17:20, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> In other countries, how are National Park and other protected_area boundaries 
> determined? If there are villages or towns within the boundary, are they 
> actually protected? Are they excluded from the area?


in Italy or Germany, the boundaries of protected areas typically either exclude 
builtup areas or if they are included, there are typically explicit special 
explanations/provisions for these areas. (there might be exceptions to this, 
but this is what I have seen).

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

[Adam Franco]

>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:40 AM Rob Savoye  wrote:
>
[...] While I do use parcel maps on fire calls, adding all these boundaries
> to OSM would be silly. I agree that mapping the outer boundary is all
> that's needed.
>

My main use of maps of National Forests is planning backcountry trips that
include dispersed camping. Knowing which parts are *actually*
owned/administered by the Forest Service is really important information. I
don't want to plan a whole trip only to discover when I hike in that my
ideal riverside camping destination is actually on a private inholding
posted with No Trespassing signs and that I'll need to hike a few more
hours to get back onto a FS-parcel where camping is allowed.

It is sounding more and more like both boundaries are useful and that they
really are two separate things. While both are related to the same abstract
concept of a particular National Forest and would have the same name=*,
they are different things in terms of their extent, meaning, and impact.
Mapping them with two objects is really the only way to come close to
capturing their nuances without implying falsehoods (protection in urban
areas/inholdings where there is none) or losing the legally authorized
boundary completely.

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:18 AM Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:

1) The boundary declared by Congress (the legislature), which includes
> large areas of private land and whole towns in many cases
>

It's not clear to me what tagging is most appropriate for this boundary,
but the current practice of boundary=national_park seems at least not-wrong
if maybe incomplete.


> 2) The actual land owned by the Federal Government of the United States
> within that declared boundary.
>

For these areas boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6/* is both
accurate and should be sufficient.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

[Rob Savoye]

On 6/23/20 9:18 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

> The argument in favor of the second is that the privately-owned land
> within the boundary has no actual protection against development. For
> example, I lived in a village which was within the declared boundaries
> of the Klamath National Forest, but the development rules were
> determined by the County government and they were mostly the same as if
> we were not in the boundary (I think?)

  The rural area I live in is full of old mining claims, which are
private property surrounded by public land. There's often zero fencing,
signs, etc... to delineate the boundary at all. Many of the mining
claims are only 50x200ft, often with an old cabin. While I do use parcel
maps on fire calls, adding all these boundaries to OSM would be silly. I
agree that mapping the outer boundary is all that's needed.

> In other countries, how are National Park and other protected_area
> boundaries determined? If there are villages or towns within the
> boundary, are they actually protected? Are they excluded from the area?

  My nearby hamlet of <200 people is also surrounded by national forest.
The forest is not "protected" at all, it's full of trails and jeep
roads. A few of the larger ranchers have fencing, but it's a bit of a
free for all elsewhere... There are few county development rules at all,
course that's partly why I like it here.

- rob -

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Here's the official USFS map online: the dark green line is the declared
outer boundary of the National Forest. When you zoom in, 2 different colors
are shown: the slightly darker green areas are the land owned by the
Federal Government, while lighter areas are privately owned. This is easier
to see if you click on the gears (Tools) and change the base map to "world
terrain".

Sometimes the privately owned land is right up against the outer boundary,
which makes it difficult to make valid multipolygons if you exclude them.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/klamath/maps-pubs/?cid=fseprd533703=full

I advocated for mapping the outer boundary since land ownership is not
something we normally map, but other mappers are saying that the land
ownership is more verifiable than the declared boundary and more
important for actual protection status and access.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:18 AM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> On the Talk-US mailing list, other mappers from the USA have been
> discussing how National Forest boundaries should be mapped.
>
> There is now generally consensus that these should be tagged
> boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6 but there are 2 possible lines to
> follow:
>
> 1) The boundary declared by Congress (the legislature), which includes
> large areas of private land and whole towns in many cases
>
> 2) The actual land owned by the Federal Government of the United States
> within that declared boundary.
>
> The argument in favor of the second is that the privately-owned land
> within the boundary has no actual protection against development. For
> example, I lived in a village which was within the declared boundaries of
> the Klamath National Forest, but the development rules were determined by
> the County government and they were mostly the same as if we were not in
> the boundary (I think?)
>
> In other countries, how are National Park and other protected_area
> boundaries determined? If there are villages or towns within the boundary,
> are they actually protected? Are they excluded from the area?
>
> – Joseph Eisenberg
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

On the Talk-US mailing list, other mappers from the USA have been
discussing how National Forest boundaries should be mapped.

There is now generally consensus that these should be tagged
boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6 but there are 2 possible lines to
follow:

1) The boundary declared by Congress (the legislature), which includes
large areas of private land and whole towns in many cases

2) The actual land owned by the Federal Government of the United States
within that declared boundary.

The argument in favor of the second is that the privately-owned land within
the boundary has no actual protection against development. For example, I
lived in a village which was within the declared boundaries of the Klamath
National Forest, but the development rules were determined by the County
government and they were mostly the same as if we were not in the boundary
(I think?)

In other countries, how are National Park and other protected_area
boundaries determined? If there are villages or towns within the boundary,
are they actually protected? Are they excluded from the area?

– Joseph Eisenberg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are rowboats covered by "boat=*" or "canoe=*"?

[Peter Elderson]

Networks for canoes use network=lpn|rpn|npn|rpn where p stands for
paddling.
Hm, I fear that only complicates the matter...

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 23 jun. 2020 om 14:05 schreef Niels Elgaard Larsen :

> Joseph Eisenberg:
> > The wiki page Key:boat 
> says that tag
> > is to specify
> >
> > "Legal access restriction for boats. In the sense of OSM these are small
> boats and
> > pleasure crafts, including yachts."
> >
> > The picture shows a "no rowboats" sign: File:A.16_Fahrverbot.svg
> > 
> >
> > But there is also a key canoe=* - the page Key:canoe
> >  says:
> >
> > "Legal access restriction for boats without a motor or a sail like
> canoes, kajaks or
> > rowboats."
> >
> > I can see how canoes and kayaks are basically the same, since both are
> narrow boats
> > that usually carry 1 or 2 people and are propelled by paddles.
>
> And Stand Up Paddle?
>
> > But should rowboat access restrictions be under this key
> canoe=yes/no/designated, or
> > are they under boat=yes/no/designated - or something else?
>
> rowboats are not canoes.
> We are missing a more generic term.
> In the international rules it is "vessels under oars"
>
> I checked the tags in Denmark.
>
> Gudenåen and Skjern Å has canoe=permissive. But rowboats are also allowed
> (I have
> rowed on Gudenåen several times).
>
> Tåning Å has boat=yes, canoe=yes, motorboat=no
>
> There was also a floating pier tagged with canoe=yes.
> And that is probably not for rowboats. Clubs typically have different
> piers for
> rowboats and kayaks.
>
> I would say that we could have both "canoe" and "rowboat" and that both
> canoe and
> rowboat are also boat, just as e.g., hgv is also motor_vehicle.
>
> rowboats should not be canoes.
> In particular canoe=portage and canoe=put_in is wrong for rowing boats.
>
> Rowing clubs:
> https://agol.dk/elgaard/roklubber.html
>
> --
> Niels Elgaard Larsen
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are rowboats covered by "boat=*" or "canoe=*"?

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

Joseph Eisenberg:
> The wiki page Key:boat  says 
> that tag
> is to specify 
> 
> "Legal access restriction for boats. In the sense of OSM these are small 
> boats and
> pleasure crafts, including yachts."
> 
> The picture shows a "no rowboats" sign: File:A.16_Fahrverbot.svg
> 
> 
> But there is also a key canoe=* - the page Key:canoe
>  says:
> 
> "Legal access restriction for boats without a motor or a sail like canoes, 
> kajaks or
> rowboats."
> 
> I can see how canoes and kayaks are basically the same, since both are narrow 
> boats
> that usually carry 1 or 2 people and are propelled by paddles.

And Stand Up Paddle?

> But should rowboat access restrictions be under this key 
> canoe=yes/no/designated, or
> are they under boat=yes/no/designated - or something else?

rowboats are not canoes.
We are missing a more generic term.
In the international rules it is "vessels under oars"

I checked the tags in Denmark.

Gudenåen and Skjern Å has canoe=permissive. But rowboats are also allowed (I 
have
rowed on Gudenåen several times).

Tåning Å has boat=yes, canoe=yes, motorboat=no

There was also a floating pier tagged with canoe=yes.
And that is probably not for rowboats. Clubs typically have different piers for
rowboats and kayaks.

I would say that we could have both "canoe" and "rowboat" and that both canoe 
and
rowboat are also boat, just as e.g., hgv is also motor_vehicle.

rowboats should not be canoes.
In particular canoe=portage and canoe=put_in is wrong for rowing boats.

Rowing clubs:
https://agol.dk/elgaard/roklubber.html

-- 
Niels Elgaard Larsen

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are rowboats covered by "boat=*" or "canoe=*"?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Jun 2020, at 09:59, Georg Feddern  wrote:
> 
> "A boat that is _not_ driven by motor or sail."
> So it also forbids canoe/kayak.
> 
> So the access can only be determined correctly if a rowboat is considered 
> with the access canoe=*.


canoe=no
rowboat=no
boat=yes


Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are rowboats covered by "boat=*" or "canoe=*"?

[Georg Feddern]

Am 23.06.2020 um 06:29 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
The wiki page Key:boat  
says that tag is to specify


"Legal access restriction for boats. In the sense of OSM these are 
small boats and pleasure crafts, including yachts."


The picture shows a "no rowboats" sign: File:A.16_Fahrverbot.svg 



But there is also a key canoe=* - the page Key:canoe 
 says:


"Legal access restriction for boats without a motor or a sail like 
canoes, kajaks or rowboats."


I can see how canoes and kayaks are basically the same, since both are 
narrow boats that usually carry 1 or 2 people and are propelled by 
paddles.


But should rowboat access restrictions be under this key 
canoe=yes/no/designated, or are they under boat=yes/no/designated - or 
something else?




I would consider a rowboat a 'boat' - but the problem is that the "No 
rowboat" sign does not mean the vehicle class but the 'drive' of the 
vehicle:

"A boat that is _not_ driven by motor or sail."
So it also forbids canoe/kayak.

So the access can only be determined correctly if a rowboat is 
considered with the access canoe=*.


E.g. the german regulations differ

a) by drive
- motor
- sail
- oars/paddle

b) by class
- sport (motor or sail boat/yacht - but not: canoe, kayak, rowboat, 
surf..., jetski)

- waterski
- wind-/kitesurfing
- waterscooter/jetski

So the access restriction boat=* could only be used for 'sport' boats 
with motor or sail.


Georg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are rowboats covered by "boat=*" or "canoe=*"?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Jun 2020, at 06:38, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> I would say that rowboats should be a boat, while canoes & kayaks (& surfskis 
> should also be mentioned under that category) would be canoe



I would also see it like this. Boats with a sail may be very small while 
rowboats may be quite big and not similar to a canoe in any way. Maybe the 
rowboat term isn’t suitable for describing a legal restriction, because it is 
so imprecise? Aren’t restrictions typically based on size and draught?


Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging