[Talk-us] Park Boundary tagging

[Apollinaris Schoell]

On Mar 2, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.   

welcome to osm. forget clean semantic and strict definitions. 
Yes it doesn't make any sense for someone with a understanding of traditional systems and technology. take the path vc. footway discussion as an example. It's still not unified and about every couple months someone starts the discussion again with no progress. almost all tags in osm are a "mess" but data consumers have learned to live with it. Don't change a running system ...

> 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.?
> 
why boundary=national_park it's in use it's rendered in mapnik and other tools. why not boundary=shopping_mall. because it's not established. If you and others decide it makes sense and start to do it then maybe in a couple months the answer will be a different one.


> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us