[Talk-us] National Park boundaries

Greg Troxel gdt at ir.bbn.com
Mon Jul 23 18:41:28 BST 2012


Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Jeffrey Ollie <jeff at ocjtech.us> wrote:
>> Perhaps add a "us:" prefix to the value?
>>
>> boundary=us:national_historic_site
>> boundary=us:national_historic_park
>> boundary=us:national_forest
>
> I like that idea, in spite of the boundary=national_park convention
> already in place.

The question is about hierarchy and the requirements imposed on
downstream data consumers.   Starting as above, we will have hundreds of
boundary tags.   And, this is a departure from landuse/leisure/natural
which is functional tagging rather than named tagging.

I would suggest thinking through how these tags are to be used by
renderers and mkgmap (and other transformation tools), and how those
transforms will be maintained as new tag values are added.

An alternative would be to define park public_forest tags for boundary,
and subtag for types.  That way processing tools that don't grok the
subtags can still do something reasonable.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20120723/4530c07c/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list