[Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Nature Reserves

[tshrub]

Hey Dan,

Dan S schrieb:
> 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.
I said, it looks for me more like a park
(excuse my English)


> * There's an area (the southern part) which has no public access, for
> habitat management.
if the restriction comes from / is supported by the 
*municipal/community*, I would say, the area-part can be tagged as 
protect_class=7.


> * 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.
than, if its an offical website, it spreads or publicise, that "park" 
might be the aim of development?



>
> I think you're right that it's not an official nature reserve, but I
> don't know what re-tagging is best.
I'm living neither in London nor in Britain ...
so its up to you.

I wouldn't foil an offical view (maybe except its important for 
navigation).
So simply the entire area as park - or/and maybe separate the smaller 
restricted part as protect_class=7 ( as third tagging version :)  )


regards,
tshrub

>
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>