[Talk-us-massachusetts] CR/PRD labeled green spaces

[Greg Troxel]

Jason Remillard <remillard.jason at gmail.com> writes:

[ generally agreed before]

> Lastly, I am not sure we should even have CR's in OSM that don't allow
> public access. None of the data consumers are looking for access=no on
> conservation properties. The access tag is always ignored, so they are
> rendered the same way an open space property that allows public access. It
> is confusing.

I don't see it that way at all.  A conservation restriction is a notable
fact (quite verifiable at town hall/registry), and it's something that's
reasoable to render.  Even for property that is outright owned by a
conservation group or a government, there might be various levels of
access, ranging from no to yes.  Some SVT properties seem to be
"creatures only", and parts of the Assabet River National Wildlife
Refuge are closed to the public.

Also, access changes; all conservation land in my town was closed for a
period this winter.  (Not long enough to change the map, but we are
getting faster and faster about making changes and pushing the data to
users - I really should have changed it, were I able, and osmand with
the live option has data with only an hour's delay.)


So if there are data consmers that see one of

  landuse=conservation
  boundary=protected_area

and even though it says access=no or access=private, treat them as if it
is access==yes, they are buggy and need to be fixed.  This doesn't seem
hard, and it seems far more straightforward than to ban the tags on
private access parcels because renderers will get it wrong.

But I wonder if I am missing something.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 162 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20180629/f4425b97/attachment.sig>