[Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Nature Reserves

Dan S danstowell+osm at gmail.com
Mon Nov 2 19:44:21 UTC 2015


2015-11-02 11:24 GMT+00:00 tshrub <my-email-confirmation at online.de>:
> Hey Dan,
>
> Dan S schrieb:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I went to check out a local nature reserve. It's currently in OSM as a
>> leisure=park. I would like to tag as leisure=nature_reserve, but this
>> one is indeed also a publicly accessible park, so I don't like the
>> idea of removing the park tag.
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188492303
>> The southern end of it is closed to the public, so at the moment my
>> inclination is to retag the main polygon as nature_reserve, and to tag
>> a smaller polygon as park. Any better ideas than that?
>
> this area is listed neither in natura2000.eea.europa.eu nor in
> protectedplanet.net.
> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Nature-protected-area>
> If
> =4 there would be *active* habitat-/species-management (trespassing
> restrictions) ?
> =5 there are longtime developed or grown and *large* areas with interaction
> of people ("scenic values" - Ecology Park?)
> =7 smaller area, protecting nature-features, like some vegetation ... or for
> recreation (scenic values?)
>
> It seems to me like protect_class=7
> The IUCN-code gave a basic and gives an orientation for OSM, but the
> protect_class doesn't reflect exact the IUCN-code.
>
> So far its possible to add
>
> boundary=protected_area
> + protect_class=7
> + protection_title=Ecology Park
> + name=Bow Creek Ecology Park
> ...
>
>
> *But* in fact:
> on its website the area too looks to a bigger part like a "park", with its
> typical nature-recreation features.
> So on the other hand again leisure=park?

I'm sorry but I don't understand you. I'm confused.
* There's an area (the southern part) which has no public access, for
habitat management.
* The rest of it is park-like, except to be honest it's not very
pretty or scenic! I think it's designed to be a place to educate city
kids about wildlife and nature. Also apparently good for birdwatching.
* The website about the area is misleading, it tries to pretend it's a
"park" in the traditional sense of being a nice place for a gentle
stroll... don't let the website confuse you.

I think you're right that it's not an official nature reserve, but I
don't know what re-tagging is best.

Dan



More information about the Talk-GB mailing list