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

[Angela Morley]

My opinion on this matter is that, firstly, expanding the acronyms out is
consistent with our guidelines. Secondly, I would keep them in place, even
if they are private or restricted. The fact is that we live in a world
where different people do different things with the map. Your practical use
case does not equal someone else. I'd say keep them in, but rename for ease
of understanding.

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 20:34 Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

>
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20180629/06028c39/attachment.html>