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

[Tyler]

>
> 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.


Correct, Washington State looks naked as low zoom levels without its
corresponding parks and national forests.
I think that national parks are a feature with particular implications to
larger and/or newer countries--as far as rendering--(US, Canada, Russia,
China, Australia, India, Brasil, etc.) which aren't particularly well
represented in Europe? (that is a genuine question, I don't know the answer
to).
Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada at 45,000 km^2 and Wrangell-St. Elias
National Park in the US at 53,000 km^2 are larger than a half dozen or so US
states and quite a few countries (both parks I would also classify as
bigfoot habitat) I've pointed out this infographic before
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/291-federal-lands-in-the-us/ but..
a lot of land in the US is federal land, and much of that is National Parks
and Forests. I don't feel like a boundary rendering is sufficient (a
boundary tagging may very well be) USGS convention has historically been to
render them as shades of green depending on scale.

-Tyler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090721/138d4a70/attachment.html>