[Talk-us] National Park boundaries

Steven Johnson sejohnson8 at gmail.com
Mon Jul 23 17:50:36 BST 2012


Martijn & all,

I rather like the samples you gave:
boundary=national_historic_site
boundary=national_historic_park
etc.
They are simple, straightforward, and unambiguous. (The pattern could also
be extended to other boundary types.)

-- SEJ
-- twitter: @geomantic
-- skype: sejohnson8

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." --
Einstein



On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> wrote:
> >
> >   a search for 'Golden Spike' yields nada. I was about to draw a
> >   boundary=national_park[3] around it with a name tag, so it would be a
> >   little easier to find. But it turns out the NPS has a boundary
> >   shapefile for all National Parks, Historic Sites, Rivers, Parkways,
> >   Lakeshores and more than a dozen other categories[4].
> >
> > I wouldn't object to importing park boundaries.
> >
> > But, I find boundary=national_park odd, relative to the rest of
> > boundary=*.  For truly large parks, it makes some sense.
> > A related issue is tagging the polygon rather than the boundary, and the
> > landuse=conservation/leisure=recreatation_ground tagging (not really
> > right for parks, but actually the combination describes the NPS
> > mission).
> >
> > So I have a mild preference (not backed up by volunteering) to make the
> > park boundary/polygon tagging a bit more baked before importing.
> >
>
> Boundary is used on ways and relations (and even on nodes..). I don't
> have a problem with using boundary ways if the boundaries are a set of
> disjoint, simple polygons like in this case. It's a shame that they
> are not rendered in default mapnik but that argument can't prevail
> over logical classification arguments.
>
> Maybe we should just introduce a new set of boundary= tags for the
> various NPS domains:
>
> boundary=national_historic_site
> boundary=national_historic_park
> boundary=national_forest[1]
> ....
>
> There are 37 classes in total, most of them with only a few instances.
>
> What do y'all think of that idea?
>
> [1] Already in use, oddly 182 out of 183 uses are nodes, seems like an
> unfinished or ill-advised edit session:
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/boundary=national_forest#overview
>
> --
> martijn van exel
> http://oegeo.wordpress.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20120723/8e0bf2cc/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list