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.
> 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 [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
