[talk-au] Distinguish between National, State etc parks

[Craig Feuerherdt]

As Jim points out this is a 'hairy' issue (having had some experience with
it when working in the Victoria state government). The name is not
sufficient to distinguish the different categories of parks/reserves etc.

John is right about the distinction between the "landuse" & "natural" tags.
"landuse" is about what is on the ground (trees, farming etc). I am assuming
national/state/other parks/areas should be attributed with the "natural"
tag, but "natural=what"?

A standard for a "jurisdiction" tag is one element. I think we also need to
add a "type" tag ie type=National Park. Will take a look on
data.australia.gov.au and see if I can find the classification and then post
it on the wiki.

cheers

2010/1/4 John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>

> 2010/1/4 Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>:
> > yep - and my point was that although many parks are called national,
> > the aren't.  Royal, Namadgi, etc.
> >
> > In the mix we also have, wilderness areas, reserves, natural heritage
> > arras and nature reserves of various descriptions.
> >
> > I think there might be an international classification/ontology of
> > protected areas. Will have a look for it...
>
> There is, was posted to this list just after data.australia.gov.au
> went online with the national parks etc data...
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20100105/d10cb419/attachment.html>