[talk-au] SA, parks tagging for the render

[Warin]

On 25/8/20 8:01 pm, cleary wrote:
> This issue was raised on this list some time ago, perhaps four or five years, maybe more.  I am one of the mappers who has added "leisure=nature reserve" to many protected areas since that time.  While tagging for the renderer is generally discouraged, a map without protected areas was perceived as a worse outcome.
>
> I have not gone back to search the precise discussion. However it is my recollection that, at the time of that list discussion, no "protected areas" were being rendered on the map and it was advised that this was unlikely to change for quite some time. National parks, conservation parks, nature refuges etc etc by various names are substantial and significant additions to the map. It was tragic that they were not being rendered unless tagged as "boundary=national park" or "leisure=nature reserve".

I've done a little hunting and you are correct, protected areas are still not being rendered.

> It is my recollection that, although not all protected areas are intended for leisure, it was considered preferable to include the "leisure=nature reserve" tag for protected areas classes one to six until such time as protected areas were rendered on the map.
>
> If the rendering situation for "protected areas" has changed, then I am open to removing the "leisure=nature reserve" tags.  However if removing the tags leads to complete removal of the areas from the map, then I think it remains one of the few areas where we tolerate tagging for the rendering outcome.

OK. 'They' are working on it but still no cigar.

>   
>
> I remain opposed to other tags intended to achieve particular shades of green or other colours on the map,  I also agree that natural features such as "natural=wood" etc be mapped separately as they are rarely bounded precisely by the boundaries of the protected area.

Problem then becomes mapping the tree area.
I might do that misusing scanaerial as a first pass to get a rough map of the trees.
That should remove the tree tagging from protected areas and have the tree area mapped at least roughly.

> On Tue, 25 Aug 2020, at 8:59 AM, Warin wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I have come across a new mapper that has changed the tagging to change
>> the shading.. i.e. tagging for the render.
>>
>> See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89852186
>>
>>
>> However .. on  looking around ...
>>
>> It looks like many of the protected areas have, in the past been tagged
>> this way!!!
>>
>>
>> See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/56255423
>>
>> The tag nature reserve was applied in 2010.
>>
>> The tag forest was applied in 2012.
>>
>>
>> My thoughts...
>>
>>
>> Both tags should be removed..
>>
>> The "protected areas" are rendered in a certain way and that rendering
>> should not be artificially changed by adding other tags.
>>
>> Certainly tagging the tree area ... fine but I find it hard to see why
>> the surrounding tree area is left unmapped.
>>
>>
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20200826/e798555a/attachment.htm>