[Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Sun Jul 28 01:34:27 UTC 2019

I'm on board with a state park specific tag.  I find protect class to be a
clunky answer and not entirely humanly intuitive compared to something like

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>

> 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
> objective.
> 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,
> recreation”
> 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
> frequently
> 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.
> -Joseph
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190727/3a9b4c95/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list