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

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

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

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

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

        - rob -

Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to