<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
</head><body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">I do agree with Christoph here, tag depreciation should be discussed outside of the scope of osm-carto. <br>
Daniel, this all thread looks like you want to promote a tagging scheme for the primary reason you can't make it look nice on the slippy map. That's really not helping tagging discussions! <br>
You should restart this all thread on tagging@ without osm-carto in mind. <br>
Yves <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">Le 3 décembre 2017 04:05:52 GMT+01:00, "Daniel Koć" <daniel@xn--ko-wla.pl> a écrit :<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Thanks for the comments! They help me to get the bigger picture,
which is not visible from just the tag names and definitions.<br />
<br />
TL;DR summary: I think that for now we should render all the
existing tags with osm-carto, but make some of them appear earlier
to encourage smooth migration to a more precise scheme.<br />
<br />
W dniu 01.12.2017 o 01:55, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze:<br />
<br />
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:3DE7FE2B-0E83-4A07-AC2C-EE4E79AAA5A3@gmail.com">
<div>there is no problem with 2 different tags fitting for the
same kind of thing. These are also different in scope,
leisure=nature_reserve is for all kind of natural protected
areas, while boundary=protected_area is for all kind of
protected areas.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
My general findings are:<br />
<br />
1. As I currently understand it, nature reserve is _always_ a type
of protected area, to begin with.<br />
<br />
We were talking on osm-carto ticket with some people about private
reserves and even when someone told me "it's not about protection!"
this term was used immediately in the same sentence (or in the next
one). =} I guess they meant "it's voluntary and not formal", but
still it's intended as a protection of nature, so it's just a
special, weak type of protection.<br />
<br />
2. The problem seems to be for a mapper to be more precise, since a
typical survey can reveal a sign with a name "XYZ nature reserve".
However this is not about just a name. <br />
<br />
Boundaries are not visible on the ground easily, so a mapper who
draw them have to use some other sources and I believe there are
more informations available. Otherwise the area shape is probably
not verifiable, which would be bad anyway. And I think all of them
are areas, not the points (node would mean probably "here is the
protection area, but exact shape is not shown at the moment"), so
boundary is also a sure thing.<br />
<br />
3. The name tag leisure=nature_reserve states that it's about
leisure (which of course might be for a given object), but it's
always about protection. So even if the value have merits, this key
assumption is wrong in general and misses more important property
(boundary=nature_reserve has only 35 uses).<br />
<br />
4. Another problem is lack of coherent definition of protection
other than numbers and high-level classes.<br />
<br />
The numbers seems to be derived from IUCN scheme (
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUCN_protected_area_categories">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUCN_protected_area_categories</a> ), but
wider: only categories 1-6 is IUCN-based and I don't know about the
rest.<br />
<br />
Especially class 7 is interesting for us: "<b>nature-feature area</b>:
similar to 4. but <i>without</i> IUCN-level.", so i guess it's for
all the non-IUCN classified nature reserves. Probably most of the
time this should be clear from the boundary shape source.<br />
<br />
It would be good to have more standardized subtags for common
features:<br />
- "nature" - protection_object=* is the same mess as numbers, when
talking about hierarchy levels, so maybe some subtag like
"nature_reserve=yes" would be useful <br />
- "private" owner type (not the access type) -
governance_type=private_landowner would be great (if really used...)<br />
- "voluntary" - but that might be clear from the lack of government
or international authorities influence<br />
<br />
What about the solutions?<br />
<br />
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:3DE7FE2B-0E83-4A07-AC2C-EE4E79AAA5A3@gmail.com">
<div>My suggestion for osm carto is to look at both tagging
schemes for nature reserves. I wouldn’t drop support for leisure
=nature reserve <br />
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
In summary, we have 3 popular but overlapping types now:<br />
<br />
1. leisure=nature_reserve (77 264)<br />
2. boundary=national_park (16 583)<br />
3. boundary=protected_area (62 016)<br />
<br />
Their general properties and relations:<br />
<br />
1. has a wrong key, but nice value name, and is a subtype of 3.<br />
2. has a nice value name and a proper key, it's also subtype of 3.<br />
3. is very broad with precise, but not so common name, it also has
subtypes, which are useful for official classification, but are not
clear for all the other types of conservation<br />
<br />
Therefore I would advice to:<br />
<br />
1. Discourage leisure=nature_reserve and make it a subtag of
boundary=protected_area, like:<br />
a) nature_reserve=yes - 2 uses<br />
b) protected_area=nature_reserve - 22 uses<br />
c) protected_area=nature - 61 uses<br />
if needed, otherwise just use a protect_class=7 or other class if
known.<br />
<br />
2. Drop boundary=national_park, since it's easy to identify them all
and they are equivalent for boundary=protected_area +
protect_class=2 anyway.<br />
<br />
That's about cleaning the tagging. For rendering I would show all of
them as currently, just using different zoom levels, starting from
z8 currently (this might change in the future, of course):<br />
- z8+: national parks and wilderness areas (both are big by
definition)<br />
- z9+: important natural protected areas (class 1-6, with hatched 1a
probably)<br />
- z10+: other natural protected areas (class 7, maybe also 12, 14
and 97-99)<br />
- z11+: protected areas without class and leisure=nature_reserve<br />
<br />
This is just a rough sketch, however it have some nice properties:<br />
- all the existing schemes are visible (boundary=national_park can
be dropped later)<br />
- more important objects are rendered first<br />
- less precise tagging is rendered late<br />
<br />
Another important factor might be their size (so for example small
national parks wouldn't be shown on z8), but it needs a lot of
worldwide testing.<br />
<br />
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]</pre>
</blockquote></div></body></html>