[Talk-us] Park Boundary tagging
gdt at ir.bbn.com
Mon Mar 4 00:55:12 UTC 2013
stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> writes:
> So, a better direction for this thread to continue might be for it to
> examine and discuss the syntax of park tagging. What might be an
> ideal tagging today (for various park entities upon which we agree
> have a "standardized" semantic understanding), what might we expect
> from tagging but do not get with mapnik today, and what might we posit
> as slight changes to mapnik style sheets which cause to happen
> interesting, consensus-reached and beautiful renderings which visually
> convey a lot more than is conveyed today?
I suggest that the tags for parks/etc. be defined so that if there are
no boundary tags, everything still makese sens. (I'll further suggest
that once this is done, there is no need for boundary tags.)) I'll
landuse=conservation (because at least a co-primary purpose is to
preserve the land for the future, and usually this is primary.)
leisure=nature_reserve (because a co-primary, but really not
quite-as-high-as-conservation is to allow access to the public)
Then we get into tags that refer to the administrator of an area.
One can consider a tag that is
administrator_name="National Park Service"
(for a "national park")
administrator_name="Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation""
(for a national-level charitable non-profit)
administrator_name="Westborough Community Land Trust"
(for a local non-profit)
Or perhaps break that up into two.
And of course name of the park.
My bias is that the nature of the land use is more important than the
identity of the manager.
Another similar area is a "wildlife refuge". Ones that allow humans are
perhaps appropriately tagged as above. Ones that do not allow humans as
perhasp landuse=conservation and some other special wildlife_refuge tag.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Talk-us