[Talk-us] Coconino National Forest boundary isn't rendering anymore?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

It's not the tagging. Other relations with boundary=protected_area +
protect_class=6 are rendering fine in the OpenStreetMap Carto style. The
code is here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/5724017f5b549ba954d9d645c0b2383dd16237d1/project.mml#L1132-L1149
- boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6 is enough.

– Joseph


On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 6:24 AM stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:

>  Paul White <pjwhite1010 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Does anybody know why the Coconino National Forest doesn't render on
> osm.org anymore? I don't see any recent changes that would've messed
> anything up but it's gone. I also noticed that the Klamath National Forest
> is gone, as well.
>
> I'm glad to see august and more-technical members of OSM (Paul Norman,
> Joseph Eisenberg...) chiming into this thread.
>
> I am the most recent author of this relation.  I made minor changes to the
> tags on the relations, not the members or their roles.  Specifically, the
> edit History (click View History link at bottom of object "pane") displays
> the previous set of tags (and seems to have rendered to the o.p.'s liking),
> which included:
>
> boundary=national_park + boundary:type=protected_area
>
> while the present tags exclude those, but include:
>
> boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6
>
> I did this because boundary=national_park is not a valid tag on a USFS
> National Forest per our evolving wiki
> https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States/Public_lands , which
> prescriptively suggests this tagging.
>
> I believe it is safe to assume that the previous tagging of
> boundary=national_park was incorrectly applied because it rendered, and
> that the somewhat clumsy and collides-with tag boundary:type=protected_area
> was added to be more consistent with the newer tagging scheme of
> protected_area, though it excluded the associates-with tag of
> protect_class=6 which my newer tagging added, along with the "proper" key
> of boundary, not boundary:type.  If you followed all that, thank you.
>
> The particular combination of boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6
> does render (as a thin green line and an occasional name=* value along
> edges).  And again, boundary=national_park renders, though differently than
> boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6 — and rightly so, as these ARE
> different entries:  a national park is not a national forest and vice versa.
>
> > If anyone knows how to fix this, let me know.
>
> I believe there isn't anything to "fix" here:  what appears to have
> happened is that a wrong-tagging which rendered with a certain appearance
> was corrected to be "more properly" tagged, and this renders, but
> differently.  As these are issues which may continue to be evolving
> (relatively newer tagging schemes like protected_area compared to
> national_park, as well as rendering support, or lack thereof, for various
> values of protect_class), it is possible I lack full clarity into either
> the present exception of or intended effects of these tags and the Carto
> renderer.  Here, I only offer my best explanation of present tagging and
> rendering effects, not future ones.
>
> SteveA
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200716/ad46cfb9/attachment.htm>