[Talk-us] Duplicate state parks in California
evindfair at gmail.com
Wed Aug 15 03:38:46 BST 2012
The way I see it is that a state park ought to be tagged as a plain-old
park, not a national park. The national park tag is for national parks.
From: AJ Ashton [mailto:aj.ashton at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:54 PM
To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-us] Duplicate state parks in California
I've seen state parks in California that are in the database twice each with
slightly different tags.
Here is an example changeset that added two of everything:
Two relations containing the same way(s): one relation is 'type=boundary,
boundary=national_park' and the other is 'type=multipolygon, leisure=park'.
Are both of these really necessary?
To me it seems a bit redundant, especially when multiple relations are
involved. (Among other things it causes multiple results for the same entity
This data is the result of an import some years ago, but don't see any
detailed info on the tagging approach that was taken. Does anyone have more
info on this, or on tagging state parks in general?
(There is also the confusion of state/regional parks being tagged as
'national' parks, but I take it that's just how things are done.)
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Talk-us