[Talk-us] Parks, again

Doug Hembry doughembry at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 7 19:58:54 UTC 2018


Hi Mateusz,
You are right that I raised the issue of the green fill for leisure=park 
because it is being used for large, wild protected lands, where it 
causes problems for "natural" and "landcover" tagging. If mappers only 
used it for smallish, low-protection, usually urban parks, as the wiki 
defines, it wouldn't be such a problem since these parks are usually 
mainly grass anyway, and no-one bothers to define them in detail with 
"natural=*" or "landcover=*".

So, yes, the problem arises in what I think is tagging for the renderer. 
And yes, that means it's really not the renderer's problem. Agreed..

On the other hand, one could argue that since the natural=*, landcover=* 
(and even landuse=*) tags exist, why should we be providing another, 
special way of fill-coloring parks (even small urban parks)? It would be 
more consistent to use the same set of landcover tags for ALL park-type 
and protected areas. And it's really no big inconvenience for mappers to 
add landuse=grass (or whatever) to their definition of a small urban 
park. (Incidentally, the other leisure=* areas that are provided with a 
fill-color (garden, playground, dog_park,..) are almost guaranteed to be 
small, and a single color fill is no problem)

I'm not sure what you meant about the national_park borders... I'm 
sorry. Could you clarify?

I stayed away from "boundary=national_park" and "leisure=nature_reserve" 
topic so as not to muddy the water in my original note. But I think it's 
true that there is also tagging for the renderer going on with these 
tags too - to force boundary rendering for "boundary=protected_area" 
which isn't there at present.

Briefly, my personal preference (for what it's worth), assuming 
rendering is added at some point for "boundary=protected_area", would be 
to drop rendering for "boundary=national_park" and 
"leisure=nature_reserve" as well (as I'm suggesting for "leisure=park"). 
The "boundary=national_park" tag is redundant, given 
"boundary=protected_area and protect_class=2 and 
protection_title=national_park". IMHO, it could be deprecated. I don't 
have an opinion on "leisure=nature_reserve". Maybe there's some value to 
keeping it as part of the set of "leisure=*" values that describe 
facilities for human recreation, but it doesn't need to explicitly render.

I should add that my comments are based only on experiences of my local 
neck of the woods (CA State, and maybe the west coast of the US). I know 
you have to consider requirements from all over..
Thanks for reading this far..


On 1/6/2018 7:58 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 21:11:04 +0000
> Doug Hembry <doughembry at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> IMHO, AT THE VERY LEAST, the background green fill for leisure=park
>> could and should be dropped by openstreeetmap-carto - it is
>> unnecessary, causes problems, and can be replaced by natural=* or
>> landcover=* . This would reduce one incentive for inappropriate use,
>> and if still used inappropriately, it wouldn't matter so much.
> I am not sure. As I understand, problem is caused by tagging for
> renderer - but national park borders are already displayed in this
> style.
> .
>



More information about the Talk-us mailing list