[Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves

[Brian Prangle]

I've changed this back to 3 reserves based on the unanimous opinion against
Martin's proposal. The whole area needs simplification to replace multiple
overlaid ways with multipolygon relations . I do have some knowledge of the
area having done 2 walking surveys there. There is also an SSSI  for part
of the site  which I'll need to work on further to see if and how it should
be mapped.

regards

Brian

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 01:20, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 09/06/19 23:58, Martin Wynne wrote:
> >> we now have 2 natural=heaths named  as nature reserves and with
> >> operator tags but
> >> without nature reserve tags.
> >
> > Hi Adam,
> >
> > But they are now nested within a larger area which does have a nature
> > reserve tag. Much of the publicity material for this area treats it as
> > a single nature reserve.
>
> But the nature reserveS have different names and ownership and should be
> tagged as such.
>
> The heath is the common aspect between the two yet this is where the
> names and ownership are applied? This is clearly tagging for the render.
>
> And it fails
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=52.3600&lon=-2.2836
> Results in the wood and the combined nature reserve ... but no idea of
> which nature reserve applies here.
>
>
> The two nature reserves should be separate entries as nature reserves -
> which is what they are. Truth in tagging should be applied.
>
>
> --------------------------------------- Quibble
> There is also the aspect that the heath has a wood in it .. yet the
> heath covers the wood. The heath should be a multipolygon relation with
> an inner for the wood....
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20190626/04d3d4f5/attachment.html>