[talk-au] Re-naming multi-site conservation reserves

[Warin]

On 16/5/22 20:31, Little Maps wrote:
> Hi folks, some advice please…
>
> In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves 
> (those that include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to 
> be given the generic name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South 
> West Woodland Nature Reserve” or “River Murray Reserve”). For example, 
> the South West Woodland Nature Reserve across western NSW has  >20 
> isolated segments, all called the same name:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5825677#map=7/-34.313/146.485


Not quite all with the 'same name'?


While they are all members of the same relation some carry a name. e.g. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/225222372

>
> On the ground (and in agency management plans) many, but not all, of 
> these patches are known and signposted with different names for 
> different patches. The ones I know are compound names comprising the 
> “local patch” name plus the name of the broader reserve network, e.g. 
> “Collendina Murray Valley Regional Park”. (Which was named after 
> Collendina State Forest when the SF was subsumed into the newer 
> “Murray Valley Regional Park”.)
>
> I’d like to add some of these reserve names to OSM to reflect the 
> names that are signposted on the ground and am seeking feedback on (1) 
> whether this is considered desirable, and (2) if so, the best way to 
> do so.


Yes .. desirable to add the names that appear 'on the ground'.

Possibly best to add the names on the individual ways .. assuming the 
single way encompasses the area concerned?


>
> I’m hoping that there’s a simpler way to add different names to 
> members of a broader boundary relation. But, if not, as best I can 
> see, this change would require: (1) removing the individual patch from 
> the boundary relation for the entire reserve network, (2) creating a 
> separate polygon or m/polygon for the isolated segment using the 
> existing imported line work, and (3) entering the new name for the 
> isolated segment plus other tags from the broader network into the 
> newly separated patch.


Humm .. the individual patches are still part of the larger thing. 
Removing them from the relation looses that connection to the others? 
Don't know .. but I'd try to follow what has been done before?

>
> This impacts on the awesome work that was done to import all of the 
> CAPAD boundaries and may complicate future updates to the network. 
> However, given the huge area that some of these reserve networks 
> cover, I believe it’s important to include the names that individual 
> reserves are signposted as and known in the regions.
>
> Can I have some feedback on this proposal please? Many thanks, Ian
>