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

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

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

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:18 AM Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

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

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

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

For these areas boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6/* is both
accurate and should be sufficient.
Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to