[talk-au] New tags for Vic State Forests

[stevea]

Yes, leisure=nature_reserve may very well be correct.  Yet, so may (additionally) a boundary=protected_area tag.  No IUCN Category need be assigned to use this tag (perhaps the local council calls something a "proto-park"), though if there is one, boundary=protected_area defines a protocol (with Roman numerals) to do so.  Also, there is a proposal asserting boundary=protected_area can be put on such public property for public use (whether present or future, like a "proto-park" which is not yet open to the public and may have few or no improvements).  This starts to skirt an edge of zoning versus actual landuse, though in the late 2000s and early 20-teens, these two were (disappointingly) blurred, something we still contend with as a project.  We (the authors) of this "strip what's so down to a single tag and use it accordingly" proposal find its simplicity refreshing and encourage its use.  Thousands have.  And the proposal is almost a blueprint for how to tag an evolving park into one nicely tagged in OSM.

So, green lights for tagging a polygon boundary=protected_boundary, please take a look around (our wiki is a good start) at how we use this tag to use it correctly.  Though, you folks ARE in .au, I am not; if .au wants to do something different, toss a wiki heads up somewhere and the rest of us will know how it is done there.

> On Jan 6, 2024, at 5:10 PM, Andrew Davidson <theswavu at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I would leave off boundary=protected_area until they have IUCN
> Categories assigned. It doesn't add any more information than
> leisure=nature_reserve.