[Talk-us] Parks, again
doughembry at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 7 19:58:54 UTC 2018
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
More information about the Talk-us