[Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Thu Jul 28 13:48:12 UTC 2016

2016-07-27 19:34 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com>:

> I also note that it isn't just a US thing. Calling an "area of outstanding
> natural beauty" boundary=national_park, or a "regional park" or
> "marine protected area" leisure=nature_reserve is just as much
> tagging for the renderer as using one of those tags to label a
> National Forest, a state park, or any one of the other legal zoo
> of protected areas that we have over here, and yet I see such things
> all over the map of the UK. It's not a lie, exactly, quite. Those are all
> areas set aside to protect some aspect of nature. It's not quite
> as precise tagging as boundary=protected_area with an
> appropriate protect_class, but it seems to be impossible for even
> the Britons to resist tagging for the renderer to at least that extent.

+1, that's exactly the situation.

leisure=nature_reserve is a quite inclusive tag, any kind of natural
protection can get this tag. The tag boundary=protected_area is even
broader in meaning (e.g. including protection of cultural assets), but with
a subtag becomes more specific. Using both tags is not "lying" but telling
a story in details and getting understood and passed on only the most basic
>From the older scheme there is also the boundary=national_park tag in use
with 18000 occurences:

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160728/eb14571a/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list