[Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Mon Jul 29 22:50:14 UTC 2019


-1 to a site relation for an area with a defined outer boundary.

Relation = boundary (and =multipolygon) works fine for defining an area,
and you can make holes to exclude at my “outparcels” or villages which are
not part of the official protected area.

Mappers don’t need to add things to relations when the geometry is enough
to show that node A isi side of area B.

Joseph



On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 7:02 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 29. Jul 2019, at 16:37, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > There are other historic sites embedded in the park....
>
>
> are all these sites mentioned to be part of the state park, or do they
> simply happen to be within the boundaries?
> If the definition of the park is a list of areas and sites, maybe a site
> relation would be appropriate: you can specify a perimeter and also add
> stuff inside (not only polygons but also nodes and ways). If legislation
> said the park is made up of A, B, C, D and E, it would be comprehensive if
> we modeled it as an object with A, B, C, D and E as members.
>
> Cheers Martin
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190730/f49a7d1c/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list