[Talk-us] Parks, again

Doug Hembry doughembry at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 7 21:55:00 UTC 2018



On 1/7/2018 12:52 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Doug Hembry <doughembry at hotmail.com<mailto:doughembry at hotmail.com>> wrote:
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 have 'leisure=nature_reserve' on a lot of things so that they
will render with the renderer that we have.
+1 (or they use "boundary=national_park", then "boundary:type=protected_area" for the same reason)

I've been trying hard to make sure that they are
also tagged with 'boundary=protected_area protect_class=*
access=*' as well, so that when and if the renderer shifts
to protected areas, I'm good to go.

While posting this,
I discovered that I've missed a few, but I need to do
research to figure out what protect_class they are.
That's one reason that I don't like requiring that
'protect_class' be the only driver. It's often not observable
on the ground. I can't tag it correctly until and unless
I've done some non-field investigation.

+1  It seems probable that some people using the boundary=protected area set will initially skip the protect_class=* tag, or defer providing it, although the table in the wiki is useful. It will likely get filled in eventually by someone, and in the meantime, if/when the renderer supports these tags, it will probably have to tolerate a missing protect_class tag, maybe by assuming a default value (?)I've also done some limited landcover with a few areas
like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6467468,
but I find it to be really slow going (getting it right involves
comparing summer and winter images, for instance).
In maps that I render, I ordinarily derive landcover
from non-OSM sources, so getting landcover for me
has a very low priority - I mostly map what I plan to
render. (Also called, "scratching your own itch.")
We're lucky in sunny CA, in that it's pretty clear from imagery where are the edges of woods, scrub or grasslands, etc. Season doesn't seem to cause problems. But around here, landcover that people have imported in the past tends to grossly inaccurate.

A fair number of 'national parks' are actually class 5 or 6, owing
to inholdings and private-public partnerships. They usually have
1b's and 2's embedded within them.

OK.. hadn't noticed this, but my point was that the protect_title tag documents that this is
a National Park.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20180107/911d769d/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list