[Talk-us] Strategy for Naming Parts of a Large Park

Elliott Plack elliott.plack at gmail.com
Sun Apr 10 16:24:27 UTC 2016

Agreed! I think we should do a super relation too, also because with all of
the parts spread over a large linear area, the label only appears in the
middle, and thus is often not shown in the popular southern area.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:40 PM stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:

> >  The
> >individual areas are generally nodes tagged leisure=park with names like
> >"Patapsco Valley State Park - McKeldin Area".  The whole park-in-a-park
> >thing feels a little off to me, but it does get the names rendered on the
> >default map.  :-/
> This sounds similar to what in our California State Parks system are
> known as "units."  These are discontiguous (don't touch each others'
> borders) park areas represented in OSM as either polygon or
> multipolygon, but are named similarly.  For example, "Henry Cowell
> Redwoods State Park" and "Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park (Fall
> Creek Unit)."  I agree, this doesn't seem ideal, and perhaps a
> super-relation to tie them all together would be yet more accurate,
> but this naming convention both seems correct and "gets the job done"
> (e.g. causes a pleasing rendering that conveys the correct names).
> SteveA
> California
Elliott Plack
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160410/3cf69452/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list