[Tagging] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy
kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com
Thu Jul 28 14:29:49 UTC 2016
On Jul 28, 2016 9:49 AM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> From the older scheme there is also the boundary=national_park tag in use
with 18000 occurences:
There's some reluctance in the US to use that tag for things that are not
national (Adirondack Park) or not parks (Green Mountain National Forest).
Those two examples are specific ones for which boundary=national _park
seemed the least misleading legacy tagging. Leisure=nature_reserve gets
applied to the more strongly protected areas inside.
I'm working hard to make sure that New York is ready for the new schema,
and I've added about 1500 boundary=protected_area tags over the last few
months. Don't punish me by saying that I must remove the less informative
tagging and have all that work disappear from the rendering while I'm
waiting for the database and renderer to catch up. That's all I'm asking.
It seems that some of the purists here are answering, 'No. If you want to
see state forests, render the map yourself.' I do render it myself. I still
think other people would want to see them, too.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging