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 mere protected_area.
The state-owned and -managed land within the regions is mapped as well. boundary=protected_area protect_class=1b leisure=nature_reserve foot=yes is one combination, but there is a whole zoo of land classifications with different land use and access constraints. The private inholdings are mapped only by exclusion. On Tue, Oct 15, 2019, 15:30 Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 1:12 PM Bradley White <theangrytom...@gmail.com> > 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 as such. It is perfectly fine to have private >> land within a USFS administrative boundary, in the same way it would >> be okay to have private land within any other government-defined >> jurisdictional boundary. >> > 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? > > This is important information to prevent trespassing. > _______________________________________________ > 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
