[talk-au] Removing tags from way 169174227 "Blue Mountains National Park"

[Warin]

I have remove the tags.

The way remains;

a) there is a large amount of detailed mapping - I am reluctant to make it difficult for someone to use that detail in the future, or to just simply provide a group of nodes they can use.

b) it is part of a multipolygon tagged natural=wood.  This is an extremely large area. I am not certain as to what to do with that, I have contacted another mapper who is concerned with it... hopefully further thinking will provide an improvement.

On 27/01/2016 11:59 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote:

> Hi,
>
> To me it seems like you've addressed the issues comprehensively.
>
> I see no reason at all to keep the redundant way.  It's just messy.
>
> If people want to see the history, or get a copy of the way, then
> that's easy enough to do - even after it's deleted.
>
> Ian.
>
> On 27 January 2016 at 11:16, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The way 169174227 is tagged;
>>
>> name=Blue Mountains National Park
>>
>> boundary=national_park
>>
>> This covers a very large area ... that is;
>>
>> part of the Blue Mountains National Park (not the northern section)
>>
>> all of;
>> Yerrandrie State Conservation Area
>>
>> Yerrandrie Regional Park
>>
>> Nattai State Conservation Area
>> Nattai National Park
>>
>> Burragorang State Conservation Area
>>
>> Kanangra-Boyd National Park
>>
>> Jenolan Karst Conservation Reserve
>>
>> As such the tags are deceptive.
>>
>>
>> I have added the following relations from LPI Admin. Boundaries;
>>
>> Blue Mountain National Park (relation 5909718)
>> Yerrandrie State Conservation Area (relation 5910215)
>> Yerrandrie Regional Park (relation 5910214)
>> Nattai State Conservation Area (relation 5910129)
>> Nattai National Park (relation 5910128)
>> Burragorang State Conservation Area (relation 5910099)
>> Kanangra-Boyd National Park (relation 5909870)
>> Jenolan Karst Conservation Reserve (relation 5910091)
>>
>> I am yet to double check for any other major entities within way 169174227
>> ... if I find any I'll add those.
>>
>> These new additions cover most of the area of way 169174227, making way
>> 169174227 redundant?
>> However I would like to keep the way in the data base for reference, so
>> removing the tags and adding a note with a suitable comment
>> would look to be a good way of preserving the history and making it easily
>> available if needed.
>>
>> I'll try leaving comments on change sets involving this way and direct them
>> here.
>>
>> So, your thoughts?
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>