[Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Sorry for a previous empty message. I clicked send too early by an accident.

29 Apr 2019, 15:02 by gdt at lexort.com:

> So, I'd be in favor of having a way on the parcel boundary, and another
> denoting the park-type sub-piece, calling those outer and inner and
> tagging:
>
>  outer: name="Foo State Park"
>  inner: leisure=park
>  relation wtih outer/inner: leisure=nature_reserve
>
> Or, perhaps not having a relation and putting leisure=nature_reserve on
> the outer, with the expectation that renderers/etc. will resolve the
> overapping landuse to the smaller geometry.
>
I think I would base deciding whatever leisure=nature_reserve (or boundary=protected_area)
should be multipolygon excluding inner or cover both should be based on a situation.

For example - is leisure=park area exempt from (all/nearly all) rules protecting remaining area?
It is probably should be multipolygon.

Is leisure=park area more intensively used but there are still some real restrictions? Probably
boundary=protected_area should also cover it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20190429/2c8d74e7/attachment.html>