[Talk-us] boundary = national_park in the US

[tshrub]

Hi Daniel,
> The problem I see with using protected_area right now (since it's not
> an accepted/rendered tag), is that an object can't have two values
> for they key "boundary". ...
than dublicate the object - but if it comes down to a boundary for just 
protected areas, you have to make a decision for one tagging-type.

The boundarys in Oregon, on the OSM-Link, have no keys + values??
On one hand, you can give keys + values to a line,
on the other hand you can give relations.
btw.: I use JOSM, http://josm.openstreetmap.de/


a protected_area
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44816271



> I'm also not sure that National Forests&
> National Recreation Areas would qualify under protected_area because
> it seems focused on the IUCN nature reserve classifications, and
> National Forests&  National Recreation Areas can be leased out for
> commercial/industrial use.
than the area is losing its state and you can delete the boundary, or see:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#resources-protected-area

_if_ there are IUCN, see protectedplanet.net, WDPA's list of protected 
sites.





> My goal is to be able to render a US-centric map of outdoor
> recreation type objects without messing with the "global view" OSM
> provides,
think, that´s two things: on one hand the data you give to OSM (here 
keep some "commons").
On the other hand you can render out of that every special stuff, you 
want. For example with http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kosmos



>...






>
> I think that an additional key is the right plan, but I wanted to get
> a bit of consensus before I started tagging a bunch of things with
> it.
have a look to the tagwatch North America.
Here you might see consens and laziness ;)
Do you have the link for that site?



>
> Possible keys: national_park=national_forest # This was my first
> inclination, but now I'm thinking it doesn't offer enough depth, on
> the other hand it's simple
>
> or
>
> national_park=forest ownership=federal # MassGIS added an ownership
> tag to designate it's state forests, and pairs it with
> landuse=forest. I don't think a landuse tag is appropriate to
> designate national forests though, because there's nothing about a
> national forest that requires it to contain trees, and vast swaths of
> them don't.
>
> or
>
> national_park=forest admin_level=2 # There are already a bunch of
> state parks tagged as admin_level=2, but should the admin_level tag
> be used outside or boundary=administrative?
>
> or
>
> public_land=national_forest # There are a lot of open to the public
> BLM lands that don't seem like they belong under the national park
> category. Does public land deserve it's own key?
on my view no,
f.e.: "forest"-value we have a landuse-key for


best regards,
t.



>
> ...
>> ...
>>> ...