[Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Sun Jul 28 21:55:29 UTC 2019

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:35, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:

Nevertheless, to some extent, we're dealing with "the language of
> OpenStreetMap is UK English as interpreted by Germans,"

Sounds like the setup for a joke.  Or a goat song.

Would it be appropriate to propose a mechanical edit to add area=yes
to closed ways that are tagged boundary={aboriginal_lands,
> national_park, protected_area} and lack any other keys that would make
> them polygons?

Wearing my pedant hat, I'd say it's appropriate to propose just about
anything, however
nonsensical.  Taking off my pedant hat, I'd say that seems like a sensible
thing to do.
Putting on my cynic hat, I'd say you'll probably get too many objections
for it to happen:
people will say you have to manually ensure area=yes is actually valid in
each situation;
others will say that mechanical edits should never be performed for any
reason; and
a few will say we should not compensate for database/toolchain shortcomings
adding unnecessary tags.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190728/5020dc9e/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list