[Talk-us] Park Boundary tagging
gdt at ir.bbn.com
Sat Mar 2 18:58:25 UTC 2013
stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> writes:
> Each of those seven values for key boundary is documented to be of
> element "area" (with the exception of boundary=user defined, where it
> is given greater freedom to be assigned to primitives of points and
> open polylines). So for Greg to assert that "if it is a boundary, it
> should be tagging the line feature, and it's a bug for that to affect
> the rendering of the area" just flatly contradicts our wiki. To
> summarize, the boundary tag absolutely positively defines areas, not
> "line features" (ways as open polylines). I completely disagree with
> Greg's conclusion above, but I'm still listening to and participating
> in this discussion.
I will concede that my view is contradictory to what's documented. But
I think there's a fundamental semantic confusion lurking, in that
boundaries are linear features, and properties of land belong as area
features. But, I see that admin_level=8 boundaries around towns also
let one define which town a particular point is in. What I am
uncomfortable with is a proliferation of boundary= which is really
trying to set properties of the area. If boundary=national_park is ok,
why not boundary=shopping_mall, etc.?
(not directed at you in parricular:)
As for landuse=conservation, I agree that it's not well supported in the
wiki. But I see a principle that every bit of land, more or less
separated by ownership or adminstrative control, should have one landuse
denoting the primary purpose. For many parcels/etc., 'conservation'
more or less sums up the purpose. In general, I think we have a
patchwork of tags with confusing semantics. It's a strength of OSM that
tag usage grows organically without process constraints, but the other
side of the coin is this sort of rethinking and rearranging.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Talk-us