Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 7:36 PM stevea  wrote:

> Adam Franco  writes:
> > Here's an example:
> >   - Parent relation:
> > - name=Xxxx National Forest
> > - operator=United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
> > - ownership=national
>
> Ah, OK, If you really DO mean "parent" relation and we move into using 
> super-relations, got it; that's OK if it is what you mean to express, please 
> use the word "super-relation" (a relation of relations).  In a 
> super-relation, the term "parent" can apply to "the" (root) of the 
> super-relation, and "a child relationship" happens between the "parent 
> super-relation" and each of the member relations (which are its "children").  
> Thank you for making that explicit.  I fully anticipated that a "more 
> correct" method to do this (complex NF data relationships in OSM) might 
> necessarily "move up" to super-relations, so here we go!

I've been dealing with this level of complexity with New York State
lands for a while. What I've done has worked fairly well for me. The
legalities are similar to those for National Forests and other Federal
protected lands; in many ways, the US system is based on New York's
because Theodore Roosevelt brought it to Washington with him.

(1) The outermost layers of the most complex cases are the Adirondack
and Catskill Parks.  These are labeled 'boundary=national_park' with a
gratuitous 'protect_class=2'.  They are massive areas: the Adirondack
Park is comparable in land area to the entire Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. They are 'public-private partnerships', with most of
the land remaining in private hands, but with land use and development
very closely regulated.  They are indeed mapped, because they are well
known and very well marked: all the highways that cross them have
prominent signage like
https://www.wamc.org/sites/wamc/files/styles/medium/public/201507/adirondack-park-sign-dscn4503.jpg
or https://tinyurl.com/y9otnrb5. Moreover, all the informational
highway signs (facilities, exits, street names, route number markers,
...) change from their ordinary color schemes (black-and-white,
white-and-green, white-and-blue, yellow-and-blue, ...) to a
distinctive brown-and-gold scheme:
https://mylonglake.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/IMG_7731-Raquette-Lake-Old-Forge-Long-Lake.jpg
https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Marcy-Field-Parking-Area-sign-by-John-Warren-300x241.png
http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19690161i1.jpg.

(2) Within these areas, there are areas that the state owns in
allodium (I'd say 'in fee simple' but the state is sovereign and its
title is allodial; there is no higher authority other than The
People.)  All of the state-owned lands fall under Article 14 of the
state constitution, which begins: "The lands of the state, now owned
or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed
by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be
leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or
private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed."
They have no permanent habitation. The larger contiguous ones are
generally designated, "Wilderness", but then there is a whole zoo of
other classifications: "Wild Forest", "Canoe Area", "Primitive Area",
"Intensive Use Area", ... These are mapped as boundary=protected_area
and usually leisure=nature_reserve (but sometimes they're other
things, such as campgrounds, ski areas, fish hatcheries, recreation
grounds, ... and are mapped accordingly).

Many of these areas, particularly the Wild Forests, are
extraordinarily diffuse.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6360587 is typical. They are
full of exclaves and inholdings. They're all open to public
recreation, and signed and posted wherever they're near a habitation,
a highway, or an established trail. (They may be marked with just
survey blazes, cairns and witness trees in the back country - and some
of the lines have not actually ever been surveyed. The Adirondacks are
like that!)

Where the areas share a boundary, or where the outer boundary of one
of the areas is the same as the boundary of one of the great parks,
I've been trying to replace multiple, questionably-aligned boundaries
with shared ways.  I've not got very far.  For instance - and I've not
done this yet - there is a segment across Lake Desolation Road at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/43.1581/-73.9705=N that
is simultaneously the outer boundary of the Adirondack Park, the
Wilcox Lake Wild Forest, and the Lake Desolation State Forest.  I'd
think that that segment should be drawn only once and present with the
'outer' role on each of those three multipolygons.

The topology of these multipolygons can be horribly complex.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32023837 is: (1) an islet. (2) An
iner way of Middle Saranac Lake. (3) An outer way of the Saranac Lakes
Wild Forest, of which much of MIddle Saranac Lake is an inner way.
Norway Island's 

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[stevea]

Adam Franco  writes:
> Steve, I think that cutting wilderness/etc areas out of the NF polygon is
> logically problematic as these *are* part of the NF, just with extra
> restrictions. You don't leave the NF when you enter the wilderness area.
> ...One significant issue with this is that
> "adding them back in by operator" would have to be handled by data
> consumers to understand the model, a new and extra burden.

I considered that possibility might or would arise even as I was writing what I 
wrote and after considering what you write here, I do agree.  I was attempting 
to take a shortcut to keep things simple, but this stuff is anything but simple!

> I'd rather see a tagging structure that was logically consistent, where a
> query of "is this point in the NF?" always returns the correct answer for
> any point. This might be more complex than just a multipolygon and use
> parent/child relations (that was intentional language choice on my part).

That is an admirable goal, seems correct (to me) and I almost hungrily await a 
data model than can capture it.

> Here's an example:
>   - Parent relation:
> - name=Xxxx National Forest
> - operator=United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
> - ownership=national

Ah, OK, If you really DO mean "parent" relation and we move into using 
super-relations, got it; that's OK if it is what you mean to express, please 
use the word "super-relation" (a relation of relations).  In a super-relation, 
the term "parent" can apply to "the" (root) of the super-relation, and "a child 
relationship" happens between the "parent super-relation" and each of the 
member relations (which are its "children").  Thank you for making that 
explicit.  I fully anticipated that a "more correct" method to do this (complex 
NF data relationships in OSM) might necessarily "move up" to super-relations, 
so here we go!

For these readers not familiar with super-relations, buckle up and study about 
them, they are both complex and powerful, so understanding the data 
relationships can be difficult.  But, sometimes (as I suspect here), there 
isn't any other good method to do what needs doing.  I've been using 
super-relations in very large bicycle route relations (e.g. ECG) for many 
years, and while complex, they both break things apart into sensible chunks and 
logically put things together in a way which (to those practiced familiar with 
how super-relations work), can and do nicely express complexities both 
understandably (more-or-less!) and which are topologically (geometrically, 
mathematically / logically, route-sensibly...) correct.

> *(NOT protect_class=6 as that will not be true for all members) *
> - One (or more) child multipolygons for all of the "normal" areas:
> - boundary=protected_area
> - protect_class=6
> - protection_title=National Forest
>  - Child multipolygons for each wilderness area (if any):
> - boundary=protected_area
> - protect_class=1b
> - protection_title=Wilderness
> - name=*
>  - Child multipolygons for each recreation area (if any):
> - boundary=protected_area
> - protect_class=5
> - protection_title=Recreation/Landscape
> - name=*
>  - Additional child multipolygons for otherwise designated parts of the
> NF not included above.

Dang, that seems quite workable!  At least at the "human builds complex 
super-relation structure" level, it makes sense to me.  Whether renderers make 
sense of it highly depends on the renderer:  some parse super-relations, some 
don't.  I invite Mr. Joseph Eisenberg to say what Carto might do.  (Or even 
intends to do?)  I'm literally nodding my head and smiling that ANYbody posted 
this here:  very cool!  I like!  Adam, I feel like ringing a bell and saying 
"we have a winner," but let's vet this more widely.  I'm excited, but let's 
pick it apart some more.

> Such a structure could have only a single object for those NFs that have a
> single uniform protection class, but expands gracefully to more complex
> situations where those exist.

Hm, some examples would help me wrap my head around this better.  I agree for 
"single," but I'd like to see what you mean by "more complex situations."

> The big challenge with this scheme is that I
> think that the parent relation may need to be a boundary relation
>  instead of a
> multipolygon relation because ways may be shared between children, eg the
> border between a protect_class=6 and a protect_class=1b area would be a
> role=outer of both, potentially resulting in an invalid multipolygon
> .

Yes, that would break JOSM's Validator plug-in, for sure (not potentially, I've 
seen this and done this and the only way to upload the MP is "in Error" or 
after it is corrected so that there are no shared outer ways).

> That said, I'm not quite 

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Adam Franco]

>
> > I would imagine that the parent NF object that has the name
> > "Green Mountain National Forest" would contain members that had
> > protect_class=6 (resource extraction), protect_class=1b (wilderness),
> > protect_class=5 (recreation areas, Appalation Trail corridor), etc.
>
> Again, yes.  To clarify, the NF object itself (the multipolygon's tags,
> I'd discourage calling this "parent" as it means something else in the
> context of relations and super-relations and we shouldn't confuse those)
> would have the name=Green Mountain National Forest + protect_class=6 tags
> (plus others, like operator=USFS).  AND the additional members "associated
> with the NF" (like wilderness areas which are "within the NF") would be
> separate polygons with* role inner as members of this NF relation, but
> ALSO with their OWN tags (like protect_class=1b and name=Breadloaf
> Wilderness).  Yes, this makes "holes" of wilderness inside of the NF, but
> think about it:  if the "whole thing less inholdings and stuff that's
> different" (outer minus inners) really deserves protect_class=6 AND the
> "inners that are wilderness"* are tagged with protect_class=1b, well,
> we've got it!  Sure, doing it like that makes it logically appear (and
> maybe actually be) that wildernesses are excluded from the NF, but in the
> sense by which we tag them, they ARE excluded, even as they are surrounded
> by something with a "lesser" protect_class.  Plus, it is the same agency
> tagged both on the multipolygon (for the outer) and its member inners.
> They are logically excluded by being inners, but because the MP is tagged
> operator=USFS (and so should be the inner wildernesses), we "add them back
> in," at least for their operator, by virtue of that tag being on the inners
> (But being differently tagged with protect_class=1b, as they should be).
> Whew!
>
(emphasis added)

Steve, I think that cutting wilderness/etc areas out of the NF polygon is
logically problematic as these *are* part of the NF, just with extra
restrictions. You don't leave the NF when you enter the wilderness area.
This is kind of like cutting out a section of a highway from its parent
route relation just because a portion of it doesn't allow heavy loads and
has additional restrictions. One significant issue with this is that
"adding them back in by operator" would have to be handled by data
consumers to understand the model, a new and extra burden.

I'd rather see a tagging structure that was logically consistent, where a
query of "is this point in the NF?" always returns the correct answer for
any point. This might be more complex than just a multipolygon and use
parent/child relations (that was intentional language choice on my part).
Here's an example:

   - Parent relation:
   - name=Xxxx National Forest
  - operator=United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
  - ownership=national
  -

*(NOT protect_class=6 as that will not be true for all members) *
   - One (or more) child multipolygons for all of the "normal" areas:
  - boundary=protected_area
  - protect_class=6
  - protection_title=National Forest
   - Child multipolygons for each wilderness area (if any):
  - boundary=protected_area
  - protect_class=1b
  - protection_title=Wilderness
  - name=*
   - Child multipolygons for each recreation area (if any):
  - boundary=protected_area
  - protect_class=5
  - protection_title=Recreation/Landscape
  - name=*
   - Additional child multipolygons for otherwise designated parts of the
   NF not included above.

Such a structure could have only a single object for those NFs that have a
single uniform protection class, but expands gracefully to more complex
situations where those exist. The big challenge with this scheme is that I
think that the parent relation may need to be a boundary relation
 instead of a
multipolygon relation because ways may be shared between children, eg the
border between a protect_class=6 and a protect_class=1b area would be a
role=outer of both, potentially resulting in an invalid multipolygon
.
That said, I'm not quite sure of the nuances of valid/invalid multipolygons
that are children of a parent relation and I'd be happy to be wrong on this
point.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 1:58 PM stevea  wrote:

> Adam Franco  writes (about my 1, 2, 3 post
> potentially defining NF MPs, now clarified that 1 isn't "all enclosing")
> > I think this is correct:.
>
>
> He continues:
> > If there is consensus on dropping (3), then a system for mapping NFs as
> > (1-2) should be possible to figure out. That said, how that OSM object is
> > assembled and tagged may be tricky. In the Green Mountain National forest
> > the (1-2) area contains a large mix of areas with different
> protections...
> > Some of these child 

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[stevea]

Adam Franco  writes (about my 1, 2, 3 post potentially 
defining NF MPs, now clarified that 1 isn't "all enclosing")
> I think this is correct:.


He continues:
> If there is consensus on dropping (3), then a system for mapping NFs as
> (1-2) should be possible to figure out. That said, how that OSM object is
> assembled and tagged may be tricky. In the Green Mountain National forest
> the (1-2) area contains a large mix of areas with different protections...
> Some of these child boundaries would have their own names and additional
> tags, others not.

Exactly!  I'm not yet ready to say 3) should be dropped, though I strongly lean 
in that direction, as I think it's unnecessary / superfluous given how we map 
"actual" data, not necessarily "Congressional" data, whatever that means.  
Let's allow this list to concur and / or wider consensus to emerge about 
whether 3) can be clearly articulated enough as "here's how we should implement 
these data in the context of a well-crafted NF multipolygon," or whether it's 
not logically / geometrically necessary for OSM to denote and should be 
"dropped."  We'll eventually get there; we do inch closer.  Especially as it 
seems to be emerging that OSM can (and does) well-represent NFs with completely 
OSM-conforming multipolygons of the sort that I describe with 1) and 2), even 
while I/we look for additional guidance on 3).  Here's something I'll throw 
against the wall and see if it sticks:  maybe 3) (Congressionally-defined 
boundary) is a sort of crutch, a "nice to have," but not strictly logically / 
geometrically necessary except as a rough outline sketch of this NF (for 
Congress-critters, for low-zoom maps).  It seems we're there, but again, I 
solicit clarity on 3) here and now.

> I would imagine that the parent NF object that has the name
> "Green Mountain National Forest" would contain members that had
> protect_class=6 (resource extraction), protect_class=1b (wilderness),
> protect_class=5 (recreation areas, Appalation Trail corridor), etc.

Again, yes.  To clarify, the NF object itself (the multipolygon's tags, I'd 
discourage calling this "parent" as it means something else in the context of 
relations and super-relations and we shouldn't confuse those) would have the 
name=Green Mountain National Forest + protect_class=6 tags (plus others, like 
operator=USFS).  AND the additional members "associated with the NF" (like 
wilderness areas which are "within the NF") would be separate polygons with 
role inner as members of this NF relation, but ALSO with their OWN tags (like 
protect_class=1b and name=Breadloaf Wilderness).  Yes, this makes "holes" of 
wilderness inside of the NF, but think about it:  if the "whole thing less 
inholdings and stuff that's different" (outer minus inners) really deserves 
protect_class=6 AND the "inners that are wilderness" are tagged with 
protect_class=1b, well, we've got it!  Sure, doing it like that makes it 
logically appear (and maybe actually be) that wildernesses are excluded from 
the NF, but in the sense by which we tag them, they ARE excluded, even as they 
are surrounded by something with a "lesser" protect_class.  Plus, it is the 
same agency tagged both on the multipolygon (for the outer) and its member 
inners.  They are logically excluded by being inners, but because the MP is 
tagged operator=USFS (and so should be the inner wildernesses), we "add them 
back in," at least for their operator, by virtue of that tag being on the 
inners (But being differently tagged with protect_class=1b, as they should be). 
 Whew!

> I'm not sure what tagging would be appropriate for the NF object itself
> maybe these as a starting point?
>- name=*
>- boundary=national_park
>- operator=US Forest Service

That IS a good starting point, for an exposition I recommend our wiki on this 
topic:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Public_lands#Agriculture_Department_.28USDA.29_National_Forests_.28USFS.29.2C_National_Grasslands.2C_Special_Biological_Areas
(Full disclosure, I'm a significant author of this wiki, even as I and other 
authors earnestly seek wider contributions to it).  There, we say:

• boundary=protected_area
• protect_class=6
• protection_title=National Forest
• ownership=national
• operator=United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Regarding the subtopic (in this context) of "Ranger Districts," I think that 
can be accommodated with polygons of the particular areas that make up the MP 
of the NF and naming them accordingly.  It might take some work on the part of 
an intrepid OSM mapper to do this, as I'm not sure the way the USFS publishes 
the geo data of the NFs these are quite delineated "by Ranger District," but it 
could be done.  And maybe it should be, I think it would be a nice thing to map.

Hey, it's a TALK page.  We're TALKING.  It sometimes takes quite a few words to 
do that.

SteveA

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[stevea]

On Jun 26, 2020, at 7:31 AM, Bradley White  wrote:
> In most county assessor records, the name on the "title" of USFS owned
> land is "United States of America", "United States Forest Service", or
> some variant. The federal government owns the land, and manages the
> land resource as well as US citizens' legal right to access the land
> (barring conservation necessities that limit access to certain users
> or any public at all).

We can chalk up "owned by USFS" is really "operated by USFS and owned by the 
People" as a minor quibble, we're saying the same thing.  Yes, sometimes 
"conservation necessities" means on certain polygons, protect_class=6 and / or 
access=* might be changed to other values.  Makes sense.

>> A USFS NF is a "virtual" multipolygon (not one in OSM, we get to that later) 
>> of three kinds of things:
>> 
>> 1) An "outer" (but not the largest one) which is "the enclosing land which 
>> USFS manages, except for inholdings, below,"
>> 2) Zero to many "inner" polygons, representing inholdings (and with the 
>> usual "hole" semantic of exclusion from 1), above and
>> 3) An even LARGER and ENCLOSING of 1) "outer" which Congress declares is the 
>> geographic extent to which USFS may or might "have influence to someday 
>> manage."
> 
> Sort of. Administratively, the USFS operates 9 regions containing 154
> "national forests", with each forest being subdivided by a number of
> ranger districts. The federal government also owns large swaths of
> land across the country. These parcels are then managed by whichever
> national forest (and ranger district) they happen to be located in.
> There isn't necessarily an "outer" way enclosing the land that the
> USFS manages, there is just a sum of US-owned parcels that fall within
> a certain NF boundary that represents the actual land managed by the
> USFS. In OSM practice, this is often a very complicated multipolygon
> with multiple 'outer' members, which is usually required in order to
> avoid self-intersecting rings.

One clear take-away from this is self-intersecting rings are not OK.  OSM's 
rules for a proper multipolygon say that already, so no harm, but OK, at least 
Congress and OSM's rules for "don't self-intersect in multipolygons" agree with 
each other.  (Good).  A more significant result I get is that the "big outer" 
isn't "enclosing" but rather a "sum."  That makes sense, too:  these shouldn't 
necessarily be contiguous and I'm sure in many cases they are not.  So I now 
understand that was a minor fault in my 1) 2) 3) posit (1, specifically).  
However, where I fail to "tame the tiger I've grabbed by the tail" is how that 
sum (of outers) "falls within a certain NF boundary that represents the actual 
land managed by the USFS."  I read those words over and over again and still am 
confused between what they say and how I've posited 1) (a bit better now) and 
3).  Why do we need both?  Do we?  I guess I'm still fuzzy on that pesky 
"Congressionally-defined" boundary separate from the logical "sum" of the 
outers which are USFS-managed.  Does an OSM multipolygon need to delineate this 
("falls within..."), or is it sufficient that "the sum of US-owned parcels" (as 
outers, with inners logically subtracted) already fully describes the 
multipolygon?  Please help me understand why Congress declares something that 
"the logical geometry" (of a proper multipolygon) already describes!

I appreciate Paul's interjection of "here is some mind-blowing mess," as I 
think most of us who look at such geo data / landuse / land ownership / 
management and have seen such "checkerboards" understand this sort of 
micro-level of complexity as "merely" a pattern of more-or-less regularized 
(square mile at-a-time) application of these macro-level rules we're hammering 
out.  I'm fine with properly tagging BLM, USFS, BLM, USFS, BLM, USFS on miles 
inside of township-sized grids inside of a federally-managed area.  I'm not 
(quite, yet) fine with the higher-level "whole thing" tagging which includes 
that pesky Congressionally-declared entity.  I and we get closer, I think, as 
Bradley's "Sort of" exposition gets ME closer, but (and I don't want to seem 
like I'm simply drubbing this horribly) I don't think we (readers of this list) 
are fully there yet.

It DOES seem that OSM can well-construct USFS NF multipolygons with one-to-many 
outers, one-to-many inners (inholdings) and both tags on the multipolygon 
itself (protect_class=6, operator=USFS, protection_title=National Forest...) 
AND tags on the individual inner members which are different (operator=BLM, for 
example).  I've understood this and tagged like this for many years (and 
thought I've done a decent job of building NFs, at least in California, where I 
primarily map).  But then this topic of Congressionally-defined reared its 
head, and it still spins mine around.  Can anyone continue to offer more 
clarity about this?  Bradley, thank you so much for all you've said so far, I 
do get closer 

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:31 AM Bradley White 
wrote:

> > We were doing great there, then I think my (admonishment?  might be too
> strong) way of expressing "owned and operated by the USFS" is technically,
> accurately stated as "owned by the People, managed / operated specifically
> by the USFS."  If you can agree with me there, I think we can get even
> closer.
>
> In most county assessor records, the name on the "title" of USFS owned
> land is "United States of America", "United States Forest Service", or
> some variant. The federal government owns the land, and manages the
> land resource as well as US citizens' legal right to access the land
> (barring conservation necessities that limit access to certain users
> or any public at all).
>
> > A USFS NF is a "virtual" multipolygon (not one in OSM, we can get to
> that later) of three kinds of things:
> >
> > 1) An "outer" (but not the biggest one) which is "the enclosing land
> which USFS manages, except for inholdings, below,"
> > 2) Zero to many "inner" polygons, representing inholdings (and with the
> usual "hole" semantic of exclusion from 1), above and
> > 3) An even LARGER and ENCLOSING of 1) "outer" which Congress declares is
> the geographic extent to which USFS may or might "have influence to someday
> manage."
>
> Sort of. Administratively, the USFS operates 9 regions containing 154
> "national forests", with each forest being subdivided by a number of
> ranger districts. The federal government also owns large swaths of
> land across the country. These parcels are then managed by whichever
> national forest (and ranger district) they happen to be located in.
> There isn't necessarily an "outer" way enclosing the land that the
> USFS manages, there is just a sum of US-owned parcels that fall within
> a certain NF boundary that represents the actual land managed by the
> USFS. In OSM practice, this is often a very complicated multipolygon
> with multiple 'outer' members, which is usually required in order to
> avoid self-intersecting rings.


If you really want to up the difficulty, the east slope of the Cascades
extending east quite some distance has checkerboards of alternating
sections that are National Forest and BLM range with the occasional private
property thrown in for maximum confusion.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Bradley White]

> We were doing great there, then I think my (admonishment?  might be too 
> strong) way of expressing "owned and operated by the USFS" is technically, 
> accurately stated as "owned by the People, managed / operated specifically by 
> the USFS."  If you can agree with me there, I think we can get even closer.

In most county assessor records, the name on the "title" of USFS owned
land is "United States of America", "United States Forest Service", or
some variant. The federal government owns the land, and manages the
land resource as well as US citizens' legal right to access the land
(barring conservation necessities that limit access to certain users
or any public at all).

> A USFS NF is a "virtual" multipolygon (not one in OSM, we can get to that 
> later) of three kinds of things:
>
> 1) An "outer" (but not the biggest one) which is "the enclosing land which 
> USFS manages, except for inholdings, below,"
> 2) Zero to many "inner" polygons, representing inholdings (and with the usual 
> "hole" semantic of exclusion from 1), above and
> 3) An even LARGER and ENCLOSING of 1) "outer" which Congress declares is the 
> geographic extent to which USFS may or might "have influence to someday 
> manage."

Sort of. Administratively, the USFS operates 9 regions containing 154
"national forests", with each forest being subdivided by a number of
ranger districts. The federal government also owns large swaths of
land across the country. These parcels are then managed by whichever
national forest (and ranger district) they happen to be located in.
There isn't necessarily an "outer" way enclosing the land that the
USFS manages, there is just a sum of US-owned parcels that fall within
a certain NF boundary that represents the actual land managed by the
USFS. In OSM practice, this is often a very complicated multipolygon
with multiple 'outer' members, which is usually required in order to
avoid self-intersecting rings.

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Adam Franco]

>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:40 AM stevea  wrote:
>
A refinement, perhaps Bradley and others agree with me, perhaps not.
>
> A USFS NF is a "virtual" multipolygon (not one in OSM, we can get to that
> later) of three kinds of things:
>
> 1) An "outer" (but not the biggest one) which is "the enclosing land which
> USFS manages, except for inholdings, below,"
> 2) Zero to many "inner" polygons, representing inholdings (and with the
> usual "hole" semantic of exclusion from 1), above and
> 3) An even LARGER and ENCLOSING of 1) "outer" which Congress declares is
> the geographic extent to which USFS may or might "have influence to someday
> manage."
>
> If we ignore 3) as "not real, but rather aspirational or in the future
> rather than the present, and certainly not on-the-ground" then an OSM
> multipolygon consists of simply 1) plus 2).
>

I think this is correct.

The difference between the "aspirational/congressionally mandated" area (3)
and the owned/managed area (1-2) my local NF (Green Mountain National Forest
)
is dramatic. Both are complex shapes, but the (1-2) area is immensely
fragmented and rarely aligned with the (3) area. The (3) boundary is mostly
useful for low-zoom maps to show an approximation of the NF region -- it is
pretty meaningless for high-zoom usage (in my opinion).

If there is consensus on dropping (3), then a system for mapping NFs as
(1-2) should be possible to figure out. That said, how that OSM object is
assembled and tagged may be tricky. In the Green Mountain National forest
the (1-2) area contains a large mix of areas with different protections

(detail map). I would imagine that the parent NF object that has the name
"Green Mountain National Forest" would contain members that had
protect_class=6 (resource extraction), protect_class=1b (wilderness),
protect_class=5 (recreation areas, Appalation Trail corridor), etc. Some of
these child boundaries would have their own names and additional tags,
others not.

I'm not sure what tagging would be appropriate for the NF object itself
maybe these as a starting point?

   - name=*
   - boundary=national_park
   - operator=US Forest Service
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[stevea]

A refinement, perhaps Bradley and others agree with me, perhaps not.

A USFS NF is a "virtual" multipolygon (not one in OSM, we can get to that 
later) of three kinds of things:

1) An "outer" (but not the biggest one) which is "the enclosing land which USFS 
manages, except for inholdings, below,"
2) Zero to many "inner" polygons, representing inholdings (and with the usual 
"hole" semantic of exclusion from 1), above and
3) An even LARGER and ENCLOSING of 1) "outer" which Congress declares is the 
geographic extent to which USFS may or might "have influence to someday manage."

If we ignore 3) as "not real, but rather aspirational or in the future rather 
than the present, and certainly not on-the-ground" then an OSM multipolygon 
consists of simply 1) plus 2).

Yes?

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[stevea]

On Jun 24, 2020, at 9:40 PM, Bradley White  wrote:
> NF congressionally designated boundary, minus private inholdings (more
> specifically, non-USFS-owned land), gives you the boundary of land
> that is actually managed and protected by the USFS. This boundary
> should be tagged with 'protect_class=6'. USFS owned land is always a
> subset of this congressional boundary (I suspect it is, in all cases
> in the US, a proper subset). Subtracting these private inholdings is
> generally going to change the shape of the 'outer' way such that it no
> longer is the same as the "designated" boundary.

That really helps; thank you!  I think I still need to do some imagination 
exercises here, and maybe see some examples (in a JOSM buffer, in the real 
world...) and it will fully crystallize in my mind.  And, if true, the phrase 
"proper subset" helps, as well.

>> My slight disagreement with Bradley is as above:  I don't think we should 
>> put a "naked" (missing admin_level) boundary=administrative tag on these, it 
>> simply feels wrong to do that.  (I READ the point that these are 
>> "Congressionally designated" and that SEEMS administrative...but, hm...).
> 
> I wasn't clear in what I meant by suggesting 'boundary=administrative'
> tagging here - I don't think we should tag "declared" boundaries
> 'boundary=administrative' with no 'admin_level'. This is simply the
> closest widely-used tag that comes close to representing what this
> "declared" boundary actually means. This is also why I suggest we
> think about not including it at all in OSM; should we also start
> adding boundaries for interstate USFS administrative regions (an
> 'admin_level', for lack of a better term, more general than a NF
> boundary), as well as ranger districts within each national forest?
> 
> The real, on-the-ground objects of importance here are the plots of
> land that are actually owned and operated by the USFS, not an
> administrative boundary that declares where each national forest *may*
> legally be authorized to own and manage land, and that is not
> surveyable on the ground.

We were doing great there, then I think my (admonishment?  might be too strong) 
way of expressing "owned and operated by the USFS" is technically, accurately 
stated as "owned by the People, managed / operated specifically by the USFS."  
If you can agree with me there, I think we can get even closer.  If not, that 
seems like a central core of the snarl in at least my understanding.

There are three states we seem to be trying to capture here:  1) land Congress 
declares is "managed and protected" by USFS, which OSM represents with an 
enclosing "outer."  2)  Excluded from 1) are inholdings, which have role 
"inner" in the multipolygon.  3) Land Bradley called "owned and operated by 
USFS" (but which I say is owned by the People and operated by the USFS).

See, 1) and 3) seem like the same thing to me.  Why would Congress say what 
Bradley mentions first (at the top of this post) is "managed and protected by 
USFS" (minus inholdings) and yet there is something "owned by USFS" (when the 
government owns land, the People own the land; the government agency is 
operator FOR the People) which I seem to confuse with 3).  Am I doing that?  Is 
Bradley?  Is Congress?  Is it about ownership and operator status being 
confused in my mind?

I'm not stupid, I'm getting closer and I'm grateful for what I hope isn't 
confused blather.

Thankful for talk-pages, thankful for the good talk that happens within them,
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Bradley White]

> However, I'm not exactly sure how the outer polygons found in NFs differ from 
> either the "Congressional" boundary or the one Bradley says he would tag 
> "boundary=administrative" (and I don't think we should tag it that, 
> especially while excluding a specific value for admin_level), but I'm willing 
> to listen to more discussion about what this "different from Congressional" 
> boundary is and how the two differ.  Apologies if that isn't clear, I'm doing 
> my best, but I remain unclear on some concepts here.

NF congressionally designated boundary, minus private inholdings (more
specifically, non-USFS-owned land), gives you the boundary of land
that is actually managed and protected by the USFS. This boundary
should be tagged with 'protect_class=6'. USFS owned land is always a
subset of this congressional boundary (I suspect it is, in all cases
in the US, a proper subset). Subtracting these private inholdings is
generally going to change the shape of the 'outer' way such that it no
longer is the same as the "designated" boundary.

> My slight disagreement with Bradley is as above:  I don't think we should put 
> a "naked" (missing admin_level) boundary=administrative tag on these, it 
> simply feels wrong to do that.  (I READ the point that these are 
> "Congressionally designated" and that SEEMS administrative...but, hm...).

I wasn't clear in what I meant by suggesting 'boundary=administrative'
tagging here - I don't think we should tag "declared" boundaries
'boundary=administrative' with no 'admin_level'. This is simply the
closest widely-used tag that comes close to representing what this
"declared" boundary actually means. This is also why I suggest we
think about not including it at all in OSM; should we also start
adding boundaries for interstate USFS administrative regions (an
'admin_level', for lack of a better term, more general than a NF
boundary), as well as ranger districts within each national forest?

The real, on-the-ground objects of importance here are the plots of
land that are actually owned and operated by the USFS, not an
administrative boundary that declares where each national forest *may*
legally be authorized to own and manage land, and that is not
surveyable on the ground.

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[stevea]

I (momentarily?) recede from my "watching mode" in this thread to offer my 
agreement with Mike and to reiterate a slight disagreement with Bradley (or 
maybe to ask Bradley and especially the wider list here for clarification), as 
while it seems we get closer to a "more definitive" way to tag NF boundaries, 
this discussion doesn't seem close to having yielded a complete agreement 
(yet).  Nor even full understanding, at least on my part.

My agreement with Mike is noticing that (in California only), CPAD data for NFs 
are excellent quality; I believe OSM users in California should feel 
comfortable using them for NFs, as when I look at the "SuperUnit" version of 
CPAD's release of these (there are also "Unit" and "Holdings," a sort of 
"parcel-level") NFs invariably have a big, SINGLE outer polygon (and up to 
hundreds of inners).  I wrote wiki on how CPAD data might be best utilized in 
OSM, see https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/California/Using_CPAD_data .  However, I'm 
not exactly sure how the outer polygons found in NFs differ from either the 
"Congressional" boundary or the one Bradley says he would tag 
"boundary=administrative" (and I don't think we should tag it that, especially 
while excluding a specific value for admin_level), but I'm willing to listen to 
more discussion about what this "different from Congressional" boundary is and 
how the two differ.  Apologies if that isn't clear, I'm doing my best, but I 
remain unclear on some concepts here.

My slight disagreement with Bradley is as above:  I don't think we should put a 
"naked" (missing admin_level) boundary=administrative tag on these, it simply 
feels wrong to do that.  (I READ the point that these are "Congressionally 
designated" and that SEEMS administrative...but, hm...).  One major problem I 
have is that we're multiplying polygons (by two) here for a SINGLE national 
forest.  Isn't there a way we can keep all these data in a single relation?  
Yes, inner can remain as the right role for inholdings, maybe outer is better 
placed on either "Congressional" or "the other one that is more on-the-ground", 
maybe we coin a third role ("congressional"?) for that one, allowing us to keep 
the "bigger, enclosing" polygons in a single multipolygon relation, which I 
think is an "OSM-sane" thing to do.

Summarizing, CPAD data for California:  very good.  Maybe even excellent, 
though I think some examination of the differences of NFs between the 
SuperUnit, Unit and Holdings flavors of CPAD data is a very good idea that 
somebody (a Californian OSM multipolygon and shapefile jockey who knows 
something about national forest structure) should take some time to examine.  
Differences between "the two" kinds of "more outer" multipolygon boundaries of 
NFs?  Murky, well, remaining somewhat murky in my mind, at least how these 
should best logically be expressed by OSM relations.  The discussion is good, I 
simply reiterate my "I still don't quite understand all of this very well" here 
and now.  Brian seems to agree with me and I don't think I'm alone.  Let's keep 
the momentum rolling until more / most of this achieve that "a-ha" moment as to 
how OSM should best express NFs with multipolygons.

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Brian M Hamlin]

seconded stevea -- very interesting and cogent, definitely reading these 
National Forest expositions


best regards from Berkeley, California   --Brian M Hamlin MAPLABS



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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Mike Thompson]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:35 PM brad  wrote:
>
>  There are a few cases where property owners have put up illegal, or very
misleading signs.
I have come across this too.  The signs are on private property, but face
you as you are traveling on a legal FS road and looking straight ahead.  It
makes it seem like the road is private from that point forward if you don't
know otherwise.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[stevea]

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

[brad]

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

[Mike Thompson]

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

[Bradley White]

> 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

[Mike Thompson]

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

[Bradley White]

> 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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[stevea]

>> A relation for all would be ok too, as long as the private inholdings are
>> not removed from the NF (which I think has been done in some cases).
> 
Bradley White  writes
> I've argued for this in the past on this mailing list, but have since
> come around to disagreeing with this position over tagging semantics.
> Most NF boundaries are now tagged with 'boundary=protected_area', in
> which case the boundary should represent physical land that the NF
> actually owns and manages, and not the congressionally-declared
> boundary. In my area, half of the city of Reno and nearly all of
> Truckee fall within an congress-declared/administrative NF boundary -
> these areas are certainly not protected.

"Private inholdings are NOT removed from the NF?"  (Emphasis mine).  That 
doesn't make sense to me.  OSM WANTS to (logically) remove private inholdings 
from NFs.  We do so with relations where inholdings are members with the 
"inner" role.

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?  (Opinion?)  Around Reno is Humboldt-Toiyabe NF, 
largest NF in the lower 48, nearly 10,000 square miles, that is LARGE.  
Wikimedia has a nice interactive map of this (superimposed on OSM data) at 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt–Toiyabe_National_Forest .  Yes, it looks 
like "half of Reno" is within this boundary.  I agree with you it is odd / 
unusual that this mix of urbanization is technically within NF boundaries.  
Yet, it is.  I believe OSM wants to map this NF "as is," not "where it appears 
the area is 'not protected'" (again, by your opinion?)

National Forests are federally-managed land, often with many inholdings in 
highly complex landuse blends.  OSM has the "machinery" to represent them:  
data structures called multipolygons with membership roles of outer and inner, 
plus tags.  If thousands of residential parcels in Reno "should" logically be 
excluded from H-T, yes, that's ambitious (and rather odd / unusual / even 
wacky), but it seems to me it is correct to represent it that way in OSM.  Can 
somebody (literally or figuratively) call up Bill Dunkelberger (Forest 
Supervisor) and ask him the questions "why are thousands of Reno's residential 
parcels inside the boundaries of our forest?  Can you explain how a map might 
properly represent this?"  There might be some history about the city of Reno, 
how Congress declares federal protection with a fee simple boundary, likely a 
great deal of hand-waving and probably an "admission" that constructing a 
ridiculously-complex multipolygon could properly represent it, but only with 
mind-boggling intricacies of detail.  Are we up for the task?!

> IMO, a tagging scheme that better represents the meaning of these two
> boundaries would be:
> 1. 'boundary=protected_area' around fee simple NF land ownership,
> since this describes the actual protected areas of land
> 2. 'boundary=administrative' (with a not-yet-existing 'admin_level')
> around declared NF boundaries, since this is an administrative
> boundary for the NF and doesn't necessarily show what land is actually
> managed by the NF.

I am virtually certain we do not want to put boundary=administrative on NFs 
(and without admin_level, this doesn't make sense; the two tags are 
codependent).  This EXCLUDES them from whatever admin_level you MIGHT give 
them, making them a "hole" in that entity at that level.  Many years ago, I 
(mistakenly) thought that national parks should haven an admin_level=2 set on 
them (and state parks 4 and county parks 6) but that logically punches a hole 
in the country, state or county, so "don't do that."

> We should even consider not including congressionally-declared
> boundaries, since they aren't even theoretically verifiable on the
> ground, and really don't necessarily indicate any kind of protection
> of the land within the boundary. Fee simple ownership is at least
> usually ground-verifiable with small yellow "NF boundary" placards.

This needs more discussion, with a better declaration of terms.  If Congress 
declares an area as protected, OSM should map it as protected.  That doesn't 
seem weird to me, although "half of Reno in a NF" does.  Most importantly how 
would we / who declares where is this "other" boundary? (not the Congressional 
one, the one which says "the USFS actually owns and manages this")  Very 
confusing as stated; I think we can state this more clearly.

SteveA



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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 10:54 PM Bradley White 
wrote:
>
> > A relation for all would be ok too, as long as the private inholdings
are
> > not removed from the NF (which I think has been done in some cases).
>
>
> IMO, a tagging scheme that better represents the meaning of these two
> boundaries would be:
> 1. 'boundary=protected_area' around fee simple NF land ownership,
> since this describes the actual protected areas of land
> 2. 'boundary=administrative' (with a not-yet-existing 'admin_level')
> around declared NF boundaries, since this is an administrative
> boundary for the NF and doesn't necessarily show what land is actually
> managed by the NF.
The above is a good and workable solution in my opinion.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Bradley White]

> A relation for all would be ok too, as long as the private inholdings are
> not removed from the NF (which I think has been done in some cases).

I've argued for this in the past on this mailing list, but have since
come around to disagreeing with this position over tagging semantics.
Most NF boundaries are now tagged with 'boundary=protected_area', in
which case the boundary should represent physical land that the NF
actually owns and manages, and not the congressionally-declared
boundary. In my area, half of the city of Reno and nearly all of
Truckee fall within an congress-declared/administrative NF boundary -
these areas are certainly not protected.

IMO, a tagging scheme that better represents the meaning of these two
boundaries would be:
1. 'boundary=protected_area' around fee simple NF land ownership,
since this describes the actual protected areas of land
2. 'boundary=administrative' (with a not-yet-existing 'admin_level')
around declared NF boundaries, since this is an administrative
boundary for the NF and doesn't necessarily show what land is actually
managed by the NF.

We should even consider not including congressionally-declared
boundaries, since they aren't even theoretically verifiable on the
ground, and really don't necessarily indicate any kind of protection
of the land within the boundary. Fee simple ownership is at least
usually ground-verifiable with small yellow "NF boundary" placards.

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries (Mike Thompson)

[stevea]

On Jun 21, 2020, at 5:58 PM, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> 1) Not all "inholdings" are completely surrounded by the National Forest, 
> they are "bites" off the edge in some cases.  I don't think one can have an 
> inner ring and an outer ring which are at all coincident (they can't share an 
> edge) and still have a valid multipolygon.

I don't wish to sound dismissive as it seems we largely agree, but this is 
merely quibbling over constructing an outer edge.  If truly a "bite off the 
edge," then it seems the outer polygon should shrink to accommodate, no need 
for edge mumbo-jumbo (though sometimes these edge memberships take on a tagging 
life of their own and it gets to be a high-wire act as to how "loaded with 
tags" each one might become).  There are a lot of methods to capture semantics 
using syntax that is crisp and unambiguous, I believe some methods are smarter 
(less or even no ambiguity about the semantics that are "meant") and cleaner 
(fewer data) than others.  There is what might be characterized as "a wide zoo 
of tagging in these realms" (nationally at the enormous polygon scope).  Thank 
you (again) to Kevin for the word "menagerie" here.  This also enters what some 
have dubbed "higher math" (multipolygon edge tagging in a relational database 
and how deep these semantics can be relied upon are a "topology of deep genus").

> 2) Holes (inner rings) are not part of the polygon.  Thus if one did an 
> analysis of (for example) a series of points, any points that fall in one of 
> the holes would not register as being inside the multipolygon, even though 
> they are inside the outer ring.

That sounds right.

And a snappy-efficient way to achieve what is "truly excluded as PRIVATE" as an 
inner member of an "outer polygon that describes geographic extents of this 
PUBLIC forest" is by simply tagging what IS the inner member with "what it is." 
 That might seem fancy word salad, so I want to break down what we say as 
understandable to both of us.

We're using the double-duty that in a public forest (with a large, enclosing 
geography, but no larger than necessary or truly) which is tagged as outer 
role, anything we tag inner role is EXCLUDED from the public forest.  That 
"inholding," in every sense I've ever seen it, is private, hence, it's an inner 
to the outer, as private isn't public and vice versa.  The logic of opposites, 
the power of roles (inner and outer) in a relational database and the geography 
(in 2-space) of what we "mean" (quite intentionally) by inner and outer become 
powerful.  Let's simply tag the "thing inside, different from its enclosing 
polygon and so excluded from that polygon" for what it is, then include it as 
an inner member of the relation.  We do this, the logic of "nodes registering 
or not" is already built into "the space."  Think of a grassland in 
otherwise-land-filled-with-trees, it's a (mathematical) "hole" (of the 2-space, 
lat-long of nodes OSM lives in).  It simply works, like math, geography, 
software.

(Um, "well written" software!)

Meet you off list?

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries (Mike Thompson)

[Mike Thompson]

Steve,

Perhaps I am not understanding what you are saying, but:

1) Not all "inholdings" are completely surrounded by the National Forest,
they are "bites" off the edge in some cases.  I don't think one can have an
inner ring and an outer ring which are at all coincident (they can't share
an edge) and still have a valid multipolygon.
2) Holes (inner rings) are not part of the polygon.  Thus if one did an
analysis of (for example) a series of points, any points that fall in one
of the holes would not register as being inside the multipolygon, even
though they are inside the outer ring.

Mike

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 6:39 PM stevea  wrote:

> Continuing from my previous post, we even have an especially data-compact
> (efficient) way of representing that:  the member of the forest relation
> which is an inholding (tagged with role inner) IS the polygon of, say, a
> private residence "inside of" the forest.
>
> For example (I'm making this up), say we have a national forest with a
> small shopping area (for food, supplies...) near its center for
> convenience.  I could see one polygon (tagged landuse=retail, name=ABC
> Forest Shopping Center) both BEING exactly that, AND being included in the
> (enclosing) forest multipolygon as a member tagged "inner."  Voilà,
> double-duty and done.
>
> SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries (Mike Thompson)

[stevea]

Continuing from my previous post, we even have an especially data-compact 
(efficient) way of representing that:  the member of the forest relation which 
is an inholding (tagged with role inner) IS the polygon of, say, a private 
residence "inside of" the forest.

For example (I'm making this up), say we have a national forest with a small 
shopping area (for food, supplies...) near its center for convenience.  I could 
see one polygon (tagged landuse=retail, name=ABC Forest Shopping Center) both 
BEING exactly that, AND being included in the (enclosing) forest multipolygon 
as a member tagged "inner."  Voilà, double-duty and done.

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries (Mike Thompson)

[stevea]

Mike Thompson  wrote:
> One polygon for the administrative boundary of the NF which was established 
> by Congress.
> Zero or more polygons describing limitations on access (no need for polygons 
> to for access=yes, we can assume that in a NF generally), whether they be due 
> to private ownership, or other reasons.  
> The above are two separate concepts, so it is ok to have two separate OSM 
> elements, in my opinion.   
> A relation for all would be ok too, as long as the private inholdings are not 
> removed from the NF (which I think has been done in some cases).

If I'm not mistaken, we already have the machinery to do that with how we build 
multipolygons.  To wit, a single multipolygon (well tagged as to name of 
national forest, protect_class=6, ownership=national...representing the forest) 
has one or more polygons with role "outer" where all those tags apply and one 
or more polygons with role "inner" where there are inholdings and "something 
else, not national forest" are, and the tags on this multipolygon do NOT apply. 
 (These appear as "holes" in the usual way inner members do in a multipolygon).

There is nothing stopping us (and sometimes we do) from adding additional 
polygons that are "coincident with the holes" which represent "what that 
particular inholding is."  It seems to me THOSE are the places where any access 
tagging (if necessary) might apply, should your fancy run to tagging those 
specificities.

We've been tagging "large public areas with inholdings" like this (using 
multipolygons with inner members) for as long as OSM has had multipolygons.  
Why might we (re-)establish "two separate concepts" in two separate data 
structures when we already achieve this with one data structure (and possibly 
others, by that I mean "one multipolygon representing the forest, which might 
have inner members," while noting that ADDITIONAL polygons can describe what 
the inholdings ARE and superimpose on top of the holes represented by the inner 
members?  Am I missing something?

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea  wrote:
>
> A large thank-you to Kevin for that deeply informative post.
>
> > brad  wrote:
> > I think its simpler and better to just create an inner boundary as was
done with the Coconino NF
>
> The Coconio NF (relation/10956348) hasn't "an" inner boundary, it has
hundreds of them.  I'm not sure I understand what Brad is saying is
"simpler and better" here, as a well-constructed multipolygon in OSM is "a
well-constructed multipolygon in OSM."  We already know how to do that so I
don't think we want to develop something else to represent the same thing.
>
> Is Brad or Mike proposing something else, like two multipolygons to
describe one national forest?
One polygon for the administrative boundary of the NF which was established
by Congress.
Zero or more polygons describing limitations on access (no need for
polygons to for access=yes, we can assume that in a NF generally), whether
they be due to private ownership, or other reasons.
The above are two separate concepts, so it is ok to have two separate OSM
elements, in my opinion.
A relation for all would be ok too, as long as the private inholdings are
not removed from the NF (which I think has been done in some cases).

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[stevea]

A large thank-you to Kevin for that deeply informative post.

> brad  wrote:
> I think its simpler and better to just create an inner boundary as was done 
> with the Coconino NF

The Coconio NF (relation/10956348) hasn't "an" inner boundary, it has hundreds 
of them.  I'm not sure I understand what Brad is saying is "simpler and better" 
here, as a well-constructed multipolygon in OSM is "a well-constructed 
multipolygon in OSM."  We already know how to do that so I don't think we want 
to develop something else to represent the same thing.

Is Brad or Mike proposing something else, like two multipolygons to describe 
one national forest?  I'd be against that (unless I hear and understand more).  
Perhaps Brad can tell the list what he thinks is "simpler and better" in the 
context of a well-defined multipolygon with one or more outer members, one or 
more inner members (as we've established) and then what he might propose?  
There is something intriguing with how Mike worded it ("separate polygons for 
inholdings, tagged with access=private and possibly ownership=private") which 
is certainly novel, and I'm willing to listen to that, but I don't quite 
understand what he means.  Two relations for one forest?  Our wider tagging 
practices don't (currently) understand this (two relations, one entity), nor do 
any renderers (that I know of), but this sort of access/ownership tagging on a 
separate polygon is an idea that might allow us to pack semantics into a 
relation (or two relations?) in a way I haven't thought of before.  Kind of 
pie-in-the-sky, but I'll listen, provided I fully understand what is being 
proposed.

We've established there are "more simply described" national forests where 
more-or-less "only" (or substantially only) the outer polygon is a member of 
the relation, and "very well described" national forests with highly complex 
memberships (perhaps multiple outer polygons, and numbering into the hundreds 
of inner elements, like Coconio).  OSM (in my opinion) has room to accept both, 
knowing that while the latter is much more complete, the former might be either 
a case of "very few if any inholdings, so essentially 'done'" or it might be "a 
rough sketch of (only) the outer polygon member to get the relation started, 
more inner polygon memberships need to be added to this relation."  And that's 
OK, but if / as we do so, let's make note of it (perhaps a FIXME tag in the 
relation with value "Incomplete; needs more inner members to describe the full 
gamut of all inholdings in this forest.")

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Mike Thompson]

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 6:31 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:
>
> > I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged
with access=private and possibly ownership=private
>
> While many Americans like to put "no trespassing" signs on their private
property, a privately owned parcel is not access=private unless there are
signs on the roads and paths leading into it which say so.
I don't know enough to know whether you can be prosecuted for trespassing
if it isn't posted, but if the owner shows up and asks you to leave, you
are compelled to leave.  Not too big of a deal if you are just passing
through, but if you have set up camp, it could be a hassle (particularly if
late). In any event, I don't want an encounter with a landowner due to my
trespassing, posted or not.


> Many privately-owned parcels in the national forests are used for forestry
> only, and there is no issue with crossing through on a road or trail in
> many cases.
>
Not true here in northern Colorado.  There are lots of small inholdings,
some with year round residences, some with seasonal cabins, and some that
people use for their RVs.  There is probably not an issue with passing
through on an established trail or road, but if one is travelling cross
country, aka bushwacking, it could be an issue. I also did recently
encounter private property while on an established trail  (the owner had
posted no trespassing signs). I wish I had known that ahead of time.
___
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" ?
 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" ?
>  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
>>  of the Green Mountain
>> National Forest  in
>> Vermont after some discussion in the Tagging list (start
>> ,
>> after
>> 
>> some comments from Kevin).  What I ended up doing is setting the outer
>> "proclamation boundary" as one relation
>>  tagged with 
>> boundary=national_park +
>> boundary_type=protected_area + protect_class=6 and the actual parcels
>> are a separate relation 
>> 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 ,  Big
>> Branch Wilderness ) and
>> protect_class=5 for recreation areas (example: Moosalamoo National
>> Recreation Area ).
>>
>> 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  and Pike
>> National Forest ) 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 do this as I participate in a "do our best, always
>>> better" efforts to accomplish this.  Even now!
>>> >
>>> > The idea of the first kind is simply a relation with a focus on the /
>>> a polygon with the outer (-most) membership.  The idea of the second kind
>>> is one of these plus a carefully crafted inner membership, often made up of
>>> a complex inholding distribution containing many sometimes complex
>>> themselves inner polygons.
>>> Thanks Steve for your insightful comments.
>>>
>>> I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged with
>>> 

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Adam Franco]

Three years ago I updated the tagging and relations
 of the Green Mountain
National Forest  in Vermont
after some discussion in the Tagging list (start
,
after

some comments from Kevin).  What I ended up doing is setting the outer
"proclamation boundary" as one relation
 tagged with
boundary=national_park +
boundary_type=protected_area + protect_class=6 and the actual parcels are a
separate relation  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
,  Big Branch Wilderness
) and protect_class=5 for
recreation areas (example: Moosalamoo National Recreation Area
).

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  and Pike
National Forest ) 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 do this as I participate in a "do our best, always
> better" efforts to accomplish this.  Even now!
> >
> > The idea of the first kind is simply a relation with a focus on the / a
> polygon with the outer (-most) membership.  The idea of the second kind is
> one of these plus a carefully crafted inner membership, often made up of a
> complex inholding distribution containing many sometimes complex themselves
> inner polygons.
> Thanks Steve for your insightful comments.
>
> I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged with
> access=private and possibly ownership=private
>
> Mike
>
> I think its simpler and better to just create an inner boundary as was
> done with the Coconino NF
> ___
> 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

[brad]

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 do this as I participate in a "do our 
best, always better" efforts to accomplish this. Even now!

>
> The idea of the first kind is simply a relation with a focus on the 
/ a polygon with the outer (-most) membership. The idea of the second 
kind is one of these plus a carefully crafted inner membership, often 
made up of a complex inholding distribution containing many sometimes 
complex themselves inner polygons.

Thanks Steve for your insightful comments.

I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged 
with access=private and possibly ownership=private


Mike

I think its simpler and better to just create an inner boundary as was 
done with the Coconino NF
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 8:33 PM Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
> > I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged with 
> > access=private and possibly ownership=private
>
> While many Americans like to put "no trespassing" signs on their private 
> property, a privately owned parcel is not access=private unless there are 
> signs on the roads and paths leading into it which say so.
>
> Many privately-owned parcels in the national forests are used for forestry 
> only, and there is no issue with crossing through on a road or trail in many 
> cases.
>
> Generally it is difficult to maintain land ownership data in OpenStreetMap. 
> Fortunately, in the USA there are publicly-available databases which contain 
> this cadastral information, so it is not necessary for us to duplicate it in 
> OpenStreetMap. Database users should expect to get land ownership information 
> directly from official sources, if they want accurate and up-to-data land 
> ownership info by parcel.
>
> For example in Oregon you can get data at 
> https://www.oregon.gov/geo/Pages/sdlibrary.aspx
>
> We should not try to map all land ownership data by parcel in OpenStreetMap.

In the particular case of these public lands, the land ownership, the
land use, and the land's access constraints are inextricably bound
together.

Your contention tends to be interpreted by the 'hard liners' as an
assertion that "public lands that are partly or wholly for recreation,
such as National Forests, but also any of a entire menagerie of other
land classes, ought not to be mapped."  This assertion has effectively
arisen whenever the subject of National Forests arises: much of the US
public expects to see them on a map, but get met with the pernicious
reply, "go to several dozen government agencies and get their
cadastre, but don't map these oblects."  (I'll accept that that';s not
what you meant, but the slope here is indeed slippery.)

In fact, OSM is the only good place that I have to aggregate this
information. When I'm using these boundaries for planning, the parcels
may be administered by multiple Federal, State and local government
agencies, plus NGO's and land trusts.  Each of these has its own
database of what it manages. OSM is the best place that I have to see
all of these public recreation lands at once. One of my favorite
motivating examples is planning a trip to Roundtop Mountain
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/357583100#map=14/42.1726/-74.0598.
The on-trail route from Palenville, far to the east, would have been
quite arduous, beyond what I'd attempt on a day trip.  Access from
Twilight Park to the north would be out of the question - it's a gated
community that does not welcome random visitors.  The snowmobile trail
access from Cortina Lane was closed at the time of year that I was
planning the trip.  I could have made the trip from the Platte Clove
Bruderhof; the religious community there is welcoming, and the trail
is open to the public, but I dislike imposing on their hospitality.
With OSM, I was able to see that the Roundtop Mountain Unit (New York
City Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Supply)
was adjacent to the Kaaterskill Wild Forest, and with my NYC parking
tag and access card in my pack, happily approached the mountain by a
much shorter route from the west.  I'd not have been able to do this
with either agency's information alone.

Now, on to the original question:

I will concede that I've never mapped a National Forest - but I have
helped with the mapping of some similarly-structured National Wildlife
Refuges, and imported data about a great many state lands in New York,
many of which have similarly diffuse boundaries.

What I've done:

1. The outermost boundary of many of these lands consists simply of an
an area in which the managing agency is authorized to acquire land,
and sometimes to apply regulation to the use of property similar to
what a zoning board might impose (and with similar requirements, such
as compensating a landowner if the regulation significantly impairs
the value of a parcel). Ordinarily it is unsigned and unobservable in
the field.  I ignore it for OSM; it's a regulatory designation for the
government's operations, with little impact on protection, public
access, land cover or land use.

2. The actual boundary - of ownership, regulation, protection, and
likely land use - is what most map users expect to see.  In many
cases, these boundaries are quite diffuse. In all the cases that I've
mapped, they're also observable in the field. The managing agency will
post the boundaries at intervals. (In my area, many of the signs look
like 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Preserve_(New_York)#/media/File:NYS_Forest_Preserve_sign.jpg,
but there are numerous older-style markers. Where a road traverses a
parcel, the signage will likely be fancier; one common form is
https://hikingthetrailtoyesterday.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/1wolf-lakedsc046871.jpg.
This boundary is, in all 

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[stevea]

I don't think we should map all ownership in OSM either, however, there is a 
lot of tagging in OSM right now which does tag ownership=national, 
ownership=state, which, for public lands owned by the federal or a state 
government, I have no problem with making this distinction known in OSM 
tagging.  It doesn't "hurt" our data and I personally find it informative to 
make this distinction (sometimes as an OSM author, sometimes as an OSM 
consumer).  I feel here that Joseph is asking us to accept hyperbole ("we 
should not try to map all land ownership by parcel") when I'm not nor do I 
believe our volunteers are asking that.  (I understand why, I even agree, 
"let's not tip towards OSM as cadastral-oracle, those are elsewhere").  I might 
tag something ownership=national or ownership=state on some public land, 
because lots of us seem to be doing that and I find it useful data (sometimes). 
 OSM isn't looked to as a land-ownership database, even as it might have a 
sprinkling of those on data, especially "national vs. state" distinctions for 
public land.  That's fairly common around the world.

In California, if you don't put a Civil Code 1008 sign up on your private-land 
easement, de facto or de jure, it might become a public easement.  There are 
rules, they are local, I don't think OSM wants to quibble here.  We might need 
to quibble and sketch in some localized method of doing things at some level in 
some cases, that's manageable.  I am not an attorney.

It's OK to have similar conversations over and over again.  We get a bit 
smarter and sharper as we do, as long as we don't lose patience or civility.  I 
think we're fine in that department.

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged with
access=private and possibly ownership=private

While many Americans like to put "no trespassing" signs on their private
property, a privately owned parcel is not access=private unless there are
signs on the roads and paths leading into it which say so.

Many privately-owned parcels in the national forests are used for forestry
only, and there is no issue with crossing through on a road or trail in
many cases.

Generally it is difficult to maintain land ownership data in OpenStreetMap.
Fortunately, in the USA there are publicly-available databases which
contain this cadastral information, so it is not necessary for us to
duplicate it in OpenStreetMap. Database users should expect to get land
ownership information directly from official sources, if they want accurate
and up-to-data land ownership info by parcel.

For example in Oregon you can get data at
https://www.oregon.gov/geo/Pages/sdlibrary.aspx

We should not try to map all land ownership data by parcel in OpenStreetMap.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:23 PM stevea  wrote:

> Mike, I hadn't considered that, it distinctly deepens the discussion.
> Stroking my chin and saying "hm" now.
> SteveA
> ___
> 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

[stevea]

Mike, I hadn't considered that, it distinctly deepens the discussion.  Stroking 
my chin and saying "hm" now.
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Mike Thompson]

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 do this as I participate in a "do our best, always
better" efforts to accomplish this.  Even now!
>
> The idea of the first kind is simply a relation with a focus on the / a
polygon with the outer (-most) membership.  The idea of the second kind is
one of these plus a carefully crafted inner membership, often made up of a
complex inholding distribution containing many sometimes complex themselves
inner polygons.
Thanks Steve for your insightful comments.

I was thinking just create separate polygons for inholdings, tagged with
access=private and possibly ownership=private

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[stevea]

I think we need both as well.  I've been doing this while watching the 
evolution of how we best do this as I participate in a "do our best, always 
better" efforts to accomplish this.  Even now!

The idea of the first kind is simply a relation with a focus on the / a polygon 
with the outer (-most) membership.  The idea of the second kind is one of these 
plus a carefully crafted inner membership, often made up of a complex inholding 
distribution containing many sometimes complex themselves inner polygons.

The idea of "both" (in my mind, maybe Mike's too) is that "a good outer is a 
good outer."  We ARE building multipolygons and they are big complex beasts 
around here.  And we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Are you 
willing to "take on" the responsibility of entering a sane (for 2020) relation 
with "simply" a single outer polygon as member of an emerging multipolygon 
relation representing the national forest?  Hey, tag it well and hang it up for 
others to add richer complexity with inner members.  This is (sometimes) how we 
build this map.  (I have offered my efforts for a decade).

I believe we want to tag these with protected_area, whereas we did, but no 
longer, "automatically" double-tag these with natural=wood, as landuse 
(national protected area we manage with our Forest Service, doesn't mean it's a 
forest) is not landcover.  As we're talking about the US, I recommend our wiki 
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States/Public_lands.

That wiki is what might be called "heavier lifting" in how we use a wiki.  Part 
of it intends to be prescriptive, saying "here's how we might very-well tag in 
the USA on public lands, and if we don't, we should" (as an ideal, at least as 
it shapes with sharper focus). Where it dissolves into "how each state does 
this today," it's a DEscriptive canvas of wet paint.  Heavy lifting, yes, but 
we can do this.  That wiki might nudge things forward, I put my shoulder into 
this.  At the federal level (which National Forests are), it does (to me) feel 
like a nice ideal with fairly-well-defined recommended tagging.  Discuss there?

How do what we enter render?  That's another topic.  Let's begin saying "we 
can, do and should enter into OSM well-tagged outer-member (only, to begin 
with) multipolygon relations representing national forests."  With  "perfect, 
rich structure?"  Every single first draft?  Let's talk in a week or month, 
these might take some work and discussion and work and discussion to do them.  
That's OK.  Earth wasn't built in a day.

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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest boundaries

[Mike Thompson]

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 2:43 PM Paul White  wrote:
>
>
>
> Which one would be better? Looking forward to feedback.
I think we need both. I am open to suggestions as how to accomplish that.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

[Paul Johnson]

Chris Lawrence wrote:
 On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Theodore Book 
 tbook-vggt2q2+t+feowh0uzb...@public.gmane.org wrote:
 Despite my taking a local approach, I do think it would be great if we
 could do a coordinated national upload of the NHD data, however.
 
 I think it would definitely help make the US OpenStreetMap look more
 professional to get as much of the NHD data in as possible.

along those same lines, if it would automatically mark 3 and 4 digit NFD
routes as Unpaved Roads and 2 digit ones as Road (since these highways
might or might not be paved) instead of marking them all unpaved would
probably help.

I'm not sure how to handle mass-updating of these roads, either...it's
exceptionally rare for people to live on an NFD road unless they live
on-site at their job (such as US Forest Service rangers, Boy Scout camp
rangers, fire watchmen, etc.).  While I don't have any aversion to going
up to the mountains and attempting to drive every road by hand to see if
it still exists and in what condition, but I would need a donation of a
compact 4x4 (like a Kia Sportage or Suzuki Sidekick, at largest a Jeep
Wrangler; nothing with low undercarriage clearance like a Honda
anything, and nothing that is completely useless off-pavement like
pretty much anything General Motors or Ford makes:  It needs to be
something that can fit down a logging road without clearing trees to
turn a corner or fit through a gap), and it would still take me years to
decades to do it..





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

[Nicholas Vetrovec]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Theodore Book tb...@libero.it wrote:
 Despite my taking a local approach, I do think it would be great if we
 could do a coordinated national upload of the NHD data, however.

I think it would definitely help make the US OpenStreetMap look more
professional to get as much of the NHD data in as possible.

 I am also looking at the GIS data from the Chattahoochee-Oconee National
 Forests, and was wondering if we had come to a consensus on National
 Forest boundaries - should they simply be tagged landuse=forest, or is
 some other tag (natural=wood, or boundary=national_park) preferred?
  Or do people think that it is better not to tag National Forest
 boundaries at all?

I think they're worth including; most U.S. commercial maps show
national forest boundaries; landuse=forest seems to be the appropriate
tag to use.


Chris

others have been using the tags leisure = nature_reserve  boundary = 
national_park 


--

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


End of Talk-us Digest, Vol 15, Issue 20
***
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

[James Fee]

I totally agree.  National Forests are administered by the Agriculture
Department (not the park service) and are managed lands for different
uses (timber,
livestock, wildlife) as well as recreation.  They are probably closer (feel
free to flame me on this) to BLM lands than National Parks.  National
Monuments are closer to National Parks than National Forests (or Wildlife
Recreation Areas) are.
Federally managed lands in the US are a huge PITA to peg down, but I
wouldn't call National Forests preserves or national parks.  Wildlife
Recreation Areas and National Monuments are closer, but even they are not
National Parks (National Monuments are administered by many different
agencies, even BLM, making it even more difficult).

--
James Fee
http://www.spatiallyadjusted.com/


On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Karl Newman siliconfi...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Nicholas Vetrovec 
 nickvet...@yahoo.comwrote:

 On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Theodore Book tb...@libero.it wrote:
  Despite my taking a local approach, I do think it would be great if
 we
  could do a coordinated national upload of the NHD data, however.

 I think it would definitely help make the US OpenStreetMap look more
 professional to get as much of the NHD data in as possible.

  I am also looking at the GIS data from the Chattahoochee-Oconee
 National
  Forests, and was wondering if we had come to a consensus on National
  Forest boundaries - should they simply be tagged landuse=forest, or
 is
  some other tag (natural=wood, or boundary=national_park) preferred?
   Or do people think that it is better not to tag National Forest
  boundaries at all?

 I think they're worth including; most U.S. commercial maps show
 national forest boundaries; landuse=forest seems to be the appropriate
 tag to use.


 Chris

 others have been using the tags leisure = nature_reserve  boundary =
 national_park


 National Forests are distinctly NOT the same as National Parks in the US.
 As far as I know, National Forests are more of an administrative area and
 don't have nearly the same level of protection as National Parks. I'm not
 even sure they're really a nature reserve.

 Karl

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


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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

[Adam Schreiber]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:34 AM, James Fee james@gmail.com wrote:
 I totally agree.  National Forests are administered by the Agriculture
 Department (not the park service) and are managed lands for different uses
 (timber, livestock, wildlife) as well as recreation.  They are probably
 closer (feel free to flame me on this) to BLM lands than National Parks.
  National Monuments are closer to National Parks than National Forests (or
 Wildlife Recreation Areas) are.
 Federally managed lands in the US are a huge PITA to peg down, but I
 wouldn't call National Forests preserves or national parks.  Wildlife
 Recreation Areas and National Monuments are closer, but even they are not
 National Parks (National Monuments are administered by many different
 agencies, even BLM, making it even more difficult).

Perhaps instead a administrative boundary level needs to be assigned.
In essence, the administrative level for national parks and forests is
the same, but what's contained is different.

Cheers,

Adam

 --
 James Fee
 http://www.spatiallyadjusted.com/


 On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Karl Newman siliconfi...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Nicholas Vetrovec nickvet...@yahoo.com
 wrote:

 On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Theodore Book tb...@libero.it wrote:
  Despite my taking a local approach, I do think it would be great if
  we
  could do a coordinated national upload of the NHD data, however.

 I think it would definitely help make the US OpenStreetMap look more
 professional to get as much of the NHD data in as possible.

  I am also looking at the GIS data from the Chattahoochee-Oconee
  National
  Forests, and was wondering if we had come to a consensus on National
  Forest boundaries - should they simply be tagged landuse=forest, or
  is
  some other tag (natural=wood, or boundary=national_park)
  preferred?
   Or do people think that it is better not to tag National Forest
  boundaries at all?

 I think they're worth including; most U.S. commercial maps show
 national forest boundaries; landuse=forest seems to be the appropriate
 tag to use.


 Chris

 others have been using the tags leisure = nature_reserve  boundary =
 national_park

 National Forests are distinctly NOT the same as National Parks in the US.
 As far as I know, National Forests are more of an administrative area and
 don't have nearly the same level of protection as National Parks. I'm not
 even sure they're really a nature reserve.

 Karl

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



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



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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

[Adam Schreiber]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:56 AM, James Fee james@gmail.com wrote:
 The problem is that they aren't the same.  National Forests are Department
 of Agriculture and National Parks are Department of Interior.  There is
 probably a smart way to tag them, but there definitely should be separation
 between National Parks and everything else.

Then an operator tag could be added.  I meant the same in the way
that states in the US have the same administrative level as counties
in England because they're the next smaller division from the national
level.  Are both operated by a national entity/bureau? Yes.  Are they
operated by the same entity/bureau? No.  Thus, make the distinction in
a meaningful way.

Cheers,

Adam

 --
 James Fee
 http://www.spatiallyadjusted.com/


 On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Adam Schreiber sa...@clemson.edu wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:34 AM, James Fee james@gmail.com wrote:
  I totally agree.  National Forests are administered by the Agriculture
  Department (not the park service) and are managed lands for different
  uses
  (timber, livestock, wildlife) as well as recreation.  They are probably
  closer (feel free to flame me on this) to BLM lands than National Parks.
   National Monuments are closer to National Parks than National Forests
  (or
  Wildlife Recreation Areas) are.
  Federally managed lands in the US are a huge PITA to peg down, but I
  wouldn't call National Forests preserves or national parks.
   Wildlife
  Recreation Areas and National Monuments are closer, but even they are
  not
  National Parks (National Monuments are administered by many different
  agencies, even BLM, making it even more difficult).

 Perhaps instead a administrative boundary level needs to be assigned.
 In essence, the administrative level for national parks and forests is
 the same, but what's contained is different.

 Cheers,

 Adam

  --
  James Fee
  http://www.spatiallyadjusted.com/
 
 
  On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Karl Newman siliconfi...@gmail.com
  wrote:
 
  On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Nicholas Vetrovec
  nickvet...@yahoo.com
  wrote:
 
  On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Theodore Book tb...@libero.it
  wrote:
   Despite my taking a local approach, I do think it would be great
   if
   we
   could do a coordinated national upload of the NHD data, however.
 
  I think it would definitely help make the US OpenStreetMap look more
  professional to get as much of the NHD data in as possible.
 
   I am also looking at the GIS data from the Chattahoochee-Oconee
   National
   Forests, and was wondering if we had come to a consensus on
   National
   Forest boundaries - should they simply be tagged landuse=forest,
   or
   is
   some other tag (natural=wood, or boundary=national_park)
   preferred?
Or do people think that it is better not to tag National Forest
   boundaries at all?
 
  I think they're worth including; most U.S. commercial maps show
  national forest boundaries; landuse=forest seems to be the
   appropriate
  tag to use.
 
 
  Chris
 
  others have been using the tags leisure = nature_reserve  boundary =
  national_park
 
  National Forests are distinctly NOT the same as National Parks in the
  US.
  As far as I know, National Forests are more of an administrative area
  and
  don't have nearly the same level of protection as National Parks. I'm
  not
  even sure they're really a nature reserve.
 
  Karl
 
  ___
  Talk-us mailing list
  Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 
 
 
  ___
  Talk-us mailing list
  Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 
 



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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

[Theodore Book]

I have put the various proposals on the wiki at: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Service_Data

It seems like the landuse=forest tag has a fair amount of consensus, but 
that we are not yet sure how to tag the fact that it is a national 
forest, and not just any forest.

Adam Schreiber wrote:
 On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:56 AM, James Fee james@gmail.com wrote:
 The problem is that they aren't the same.  National Forests are Department
 of Agriculture and National Parks are Department of Interior.  There is
 probably a smart way to tag them, but there definitely should be separation
 between National Parks and everything else.
 
 Then an operator tag could be added.  I meant the same in the way
 that states in the US have the same administrative level as counties
 in England because they're the next smaller division from the national
 level.  Are both operated by a national entity/bureau? Yes.  Are they
 operated by the same entity/bureau? No.  Thus, make the distinction in
 a meaningful way.
 
 Cheers,
 
 Adam
 


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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

[Karl Newman]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Theodore Book tb...@libero.it wrote:

 I have put the various proposals on the wiki at:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Service_Data

 It seems like the landuse=forest tag has a fair amount of consensus, but
 that we are not yet sure how to tag the fact that it is a national
 forest, and not just any forest.


Especially since there may be large swathes within the national forest
boundary that are devoid of trees...

Karl
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

[Matthias Julius]

Karl Newman siliconfi...@gmail.com writes:

 On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Theodore Book tb...@libero.it wrote:

 I have put the various proposals on the wiki at:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Service_Data

 It seems like the landuse=forest tag has a fair amount of consensus, but
 that we are not yet sure how to tag the fact that it is a national
 forest, and not just any forest.


 Especially since there may be large swathes within the national forest
 boundary that are devoid of trees...

There is also a distinction between landuse=forest and natural=wood.

But analogous to boundary=national_park there could be
boundary=national_forest.  And then one would need to extend this to
state parks and forests as well as metro parks and who knows what kind
of administrations manage some pieces of land.

So maybe this should be boundary=park,admin_level=1 for national parks
and admin_level=2 for state parks and so on.

The possibilities are endless ...

Matthias

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

[Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

[Theodore Book]

The Etowah river watershed is now completely uploaded - although even 
with the faster updates, Mapnik still has some catching up to do.  I 
will wait a week or so, but if no-one sees any problems, I may upload 
some more Georgia watersheds.  The basin is at:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.291lon=-84.673zoom=10layers=B000FTF
Despite my taking a local approach, I do think it would be great if we 
could do a coordinated national upload of the NHD data, however.

I am also looking at the GIS data from the Chattahoochee-Oconee National 
Forests, and was wondering if we had come to a consensus on National 
Forest boundaries - should they simply be tagged landuse=forest, or is 
some other tag (natural=wood, or boundary=national_park) preferred? 
   Or do people think that it is better not to tag National Forest 
boundaries at all?


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

Re: [Talk-us] National Forest Boundaries

[Chris Lawrence]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Theodore Book tb...@libero.it wrote:
 Despite my taking a local approach, I do think it would be great if we
 could do a coordinated national upload of the NHD data, however.

I think it would definitely help make the US OpenStreetMap look more
professional to get as much of the NHD data in as possible.

 I am also looking at the GIS data from the Chattahoochee-Oconee National
 Forests, and was wondering if we had come to a consensus on National
 Forest boundaries - should they simply be tagged landuse=forest, or is
 some other tag (natural=wood, or boundary=national_park) preferred?
   Or do people think that it is better not to tag National Forest
 boundaries at all?

I think they're worth including; most U.S. commercial maps show
national forest boundaries; landuse=forest seems to be the appropriate
tag to use.


Chris

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