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 Boundaries' (preselected), choose your file format, and open in your favorite GIS program. This boundary is what is in OSM, or at least what should be. These boundaries can also be viewed using USFS Topo maps (https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/states-regions/states.php)
You will see that sometimes private land punches a hole in these boundaries, and if so it should be in OSM as such. But you will also see that sometimes (often times in the west coast), private land *doesn't* punch a hole in the boundary, and thus there *shouldn't* be a hole in the boundary in OSM despite being a private in-holding. This is what I mean by these conflating landuse and jurisdiction. Private land inside NF boundaries does not automatically mean there's a hole in NF boundary. 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. On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:45 PM Kevin <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 consideration and > just conveying where a National Forest is is more important than showing a > patchwork of in-holdings (which by the way are constantly changing with land > swaps and selling or buying parcels). This may be where the idea of an > administrative boundary or area comes from? In any case a really excellent > source for all protected lands is the USGS PAD-US dataset. > https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/science-analytics-and-synthesis/gap/science/protected-areas > Disclaimer: I am the Georgia data steward. > > So Mike, > I would say if you have the information and data that there's a private > in-holding, I would exclude it from the National Forest (or whatever) polygon > and maybe map the landcover (forest, etc) if you are so inclined. > > Kevin > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 3:12 PM Bradley White <[email protected]> > 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. >> >> > 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 _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
