[OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...

[John Smith]

--- On Tue, 21/7/09, Tyler <tyler.ritchie at gmail.com> wrote:

> landuse. While I'm not convinced national parks,
> national forest wilderness areas,
> federal/state/county/municipal wildlife reserves
> shouldn't be solid fill areas in renderers, I have no
> argument that boundary="reserve type" is
> inadequate. I do think that there should be a better way to
> tag nature reserves and allowed activities, to that end
> I'm currently looking into regulations in non-US
> countries with similarly regulated large areas (generic
> applicable tags seem appropriate).

In some cases they are so large that they're used to help orientate yourself on a map. With out them the map looks less map like.

http://osm.org/go/uYrAQb--

Two thirds of the Aust. Cap. Territory is national park, ACT is only 100 sq km I think:

http://osm.org/go/uNPvyrl-

Although it's hard to tell where the ACT is because state borders don't seem to render at higher levels or when I fixed them up I over looked something.