On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 1:30 AM Michael Patrick wrote:
> And size is no determination of importance, because the 'rules' are
> dramatically different for different agencies and departments. Some of these
> provide access, The Magruder Corridor easement is basically the width of the
> track,
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 16:39 Mike Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:28 PM Bradley White
> wrote:
>
>> Yes I understand that, that is what the landuse tag is for. Private
>> land should tagged as private. Public land should be tagged as public.
>> The 'access' tag is probably preferable
Once again, I think that New York state lands offer a parallel.
The administrative borders of the Adirondack and Catskill parks are mapped
(boundary=national_park protect_class=2). This has been discussed
elsewhere; for these two specific regions, national_park appears to be a
better fit than a
> I downloaded a quad (geotiff) for part of the area in question and pulled it
> into QGIS. It generally agrees with the county land ownership information,
> with the exception that some state lands are shown on the quad as owned by
> the Federal Government. Perhaps this is an error in one of
> One point is that the NFS may have made arrangements with the landowner such
> that some access by the public is permitted. I say this because an official
> USFS trail (Crosier Mountain Trail)[1] crosses private land and there are no
> signs saying "No Trespassing"
The way may be, but
All,
I got this message off list from Greg Mathews who works for the USGS, for
some reason he was unable to post himself (something wrong with his
subscription perhaps):
BEGIN
Hi folks, This is a dataset I'm somewhat familiar with. Likely the best
available data for land management agency
This key works for anywhere on this
> (https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/states-regions/states.php)
> slippy map - take a look at the national forests near you and you will
> find plenty of private land that is still within the NF boundary.
>
I downloaded a quad (geotiff) for part of
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:30 PM Bradley White
wrote:
> Sorry - not too familiar with imgur! Does this work?
> https://i.imgur.com/4OC23x3.png
Yes, that worked!
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:28 PM Bradley White
wrote:
> Yes I understand that, that is what the landuse tag is for. Private
> land should tagged as private. Public land should be tagged as public.
> The 'access' tag is probably preferable for this, and it's what I use.
> My point is that none of
Another place to discuss this might be
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:United_States/Public_lands , an emerging place
to try to unravel the highly complex multi-jurisdictional, part
human-recreation (part not), "public lands" in the USA. This wiki originally
started from a multi-volunteer
Sorry - not too familiar with imgur! Does this work?
https://i.imgur.com/4OC23x3.png
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 1:24 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:21 PM Bradley White
> wrote:
>>
>> A visual example since I don't feel like what I'm saying is being
>> understood:
Yes I understand that, that is what the landuse tag is for. Private
land should tagged as private. Public land should be tagged as public.
The 'access' tag is probably preferable for this, and it's what I use.
My point is that none of this involves the NF boundary, and to please
leave it alone
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:21 PM Bradley White
wrote:
> A visual example since I don't feel like what I'm saying is being
> understood: https://imgur.com/a/0ELKyxH
The link takes me to a page that is asking me to sign in.
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
> Please do not add holes in the boundary unless they are officially
> designated! Otherwise there is no point to keeping these
> administrative boundaries in OSM.
>
Ok, but we still need to know where those private inholdings are, because
Forest regulations will not apply. For example, unless
A visual example since I don't feel like what I'm saying is being
understood: https://imgur.com/a/0ELKyxH
This key works for anywhere on this
(https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/states-regions/states.php)
slippy map - take a look at the national forests near you and you will
find
Every National Forest has an administrative boundary - they can be
downloaded here:
https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/webapps/EDW_DataExtract/. Accept the
disclaimer, click the button with the scissors in the top left corner,
choose the national forest you want, select 'Administrative Forest
> Ok, so how to tag the parts that are within the administrative boundaries but
> which are not owned by the US Government? Or, how to tag the parts that are
> both within the boundary and owned by the US Government?
It depends on what is actually on the ground. It appears you and
others are
Bradley,
I'm not sure that this is typically how federal lands are conceptualized,
at least on the east coast. It is usually as Mike suggests a 1:1
correspondence with the actual Fee Simple boundary and federal management.
A lot of times when maps are drawn or gis data is developed scale is a
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 1:12 PM Bradley White
wrote:
> No, this is incorrect. USFS administrative boundaries and USFS managed
> land are not the same thing, though the latter is always inside the
> former. The boundaries currently in OSM are administrative boundaries,
> and are tagged correctly
No, this is incorrect. USFS administrative boundaries and USFS managed
land are not the same thing, though the latter is always inside the
former. The boundaries currently in OSM are administrative boundaries,
and are tagged correctly as such. It is perfectly fine to have private
land within a
The consensus of those who replied seem to be to exclude these privately
held lands from the National Forest boundaries. Is that correct? Does
anyone object to that approach? If not, I will proceed in that manner as
well.
Mike
___
Talk-us mailing list
> Not all of the land within US National Forests is owned by the US
> Government, there are private "inholdings" [1].
>
> The boundaries between government land and private land are often marked by
> signs, e.g.[2] The above photo is geotagged, and if you drag it into JOSM
> you can see that it
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 3:10 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> Not all of the land within US National Forests is owned by the US Government,
> there are private "inholdings" [1].
>
> The boundaries between government land and private land are often marked by
> signs, e.g.[2] The above photo is
23 matches
Mail list logo
