[Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Sun Jul 28 00:23:54 UTC 2019

We should discuss this at Github to get other ideas and opinions. In
particular, please make a well-reasoned argument for why we need to
supposed boundaries tagged on closed ways at #3785 - try to be concise and

I think it may be difficult to get protect_class=21 rendered, unless the
tag is more precisely defined. While you are using this tag specifically
for recreation related protected areas, the current wiki page says that it
can be used for

“*Community life:* religious, sacred areas, associative locations,

These should not be rendered in the same color as natural protected areas,
and the difference between religious area and recreation is very large, so
I think these would need different tagging and rendering differently.

3 options:

1) make a proposal to redefine the meaning of protected class = 21 to mean
recreation only, then we might be able to render it if others use the tag

However, this would not match the IUCN classes that were originally used.

2) make a proposal for a new protect_class - maybe 28 - specifically for
recreation areas, such as National Recreation areas and some State parks

This would make a clearly defined tag without changing the existing meaning
of protect_class=21

3) create a new tag, eg
a) boundary=recreation_area
b) boundary=state_park

boundary=recreation_area or so something similar could be used for any
protected area without requiring the use of multiple tags, and has the
benefit of using plain English rather that a random number (I never can
remember those), but it would be important to clarify the difference
between this and leisure=recreation_ground and leisure=park.

boundary=state_park would be really easy to use for any state or
provincial-level Park, and would work like boundary=national_park. Mappers
could tag any State of Provincial park just based on the title. But you
would still need to use other tags like protect_class to distinguish the
type of protection, if that really matters.


On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 6:56 AM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:10 AM Joseph Eisenberg
> <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > For your New York State park examples, protect_class=21 might be the
> best option, so go ahead and add this tagging, in addition to tagging any
> specific areas within that qualify as a leisure=park or nature_reserve
> >
> > But many State parks on the West Coast are similar to national parks, eg
> many State parks in Oregon, Washington and California are protected because
> they are areas of outstanding natural beauty. Silver Falls in Oregon is a
> good example
> >
> > These types of State Parks can be tagged as boundary=protected_area with
> protect_class=2 or =3 or =5 depending,  or leisure=nature_reserve in many
> cases.
> [Off list]
> As I said in public, you're right that if a different protect_class is
> appropriate, you should use it. But I've yet to be in a place that
> doesn't have at least some mixed-use State Parks of the type that I
> describe, so we need tagging for them. (I've lived in multiple states,
> on both coasts and in fly-over country.)
> Thanks for the work on making such objects render, particularly in
> pushing for https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3785.
> If it adds any grist to the mill, note that there are nearly three
> thousand closed ways in North America that are protected areas or
> national parks and do not wind up in the 'polygon' table. Query that
> identified them is at
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3819#issuecomment-509865506
> .
> The Wiki may be wrong (according to Paul) but the tagging is very well
> established - and fewer than 20% of those protected areas came from my
> imports. (OK, I'm an early adopter of protected_area).
> This also raises the issue of getting the protect_class=21 to render.
> A rendering similar to nature_reserve would seem to be appropriate,
> with the inside highlight colour the paler shade that is used for
> leisure=park.  (I've also been using protect_class=22 for 'State
> Historic Site' but I'm open to other suggestions on that one!)
> In addition to 21 and 22, I've used protect_class=12 extensively for
> 'Watershed Recreation Land' - which are basically tracts of forest
> that a government has purchased so that they will not be developed, in
> order to protect the water quality downhill or downstream from them.
> New York City supports a lot of these - they are outside New York City
> but protect its water supply, which comes in by an extensive system of
> aqueducts. (As far as their legal status goes, New York City is simply
> a government functioning as a private landowner, and the laws of the
> county where the parcel is located govern.) I've also similarly used
> protect_class=15 for "State Flood Control Area" - state-owned land
> that's kept off the market because it's subject to sporadic
> inundation, but is often open to public recreation, especially
> hunting, when not flooded. I'm less eager about getting rendering for
> 12 and 15 since they're all tagged 'leisure=nature_reserve' in
> addition, and that's not even too inaccurate.
> So, what do you think? Do I have a chance of seeing 21 and 22
> rendered? It doesn't look insanely difficult, once the database is
> rebuilt with the osm2pgsql change - but I've seen how much political
> resistance there is, and I confess that I don't understand why there
> seems to be considerable resistance entirely outside the technical
> difficulties.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190728/87b3920f/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list