[OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 30. Nov 2017, at 23:09, Daniel Koć <daniel at koć.pl> wrote:

>> There are 62k uses of boundary=protected_area and 77k of
>> leisure=nature_reserve and 31k of the combination - which does not
>> really support your idea that the latter is used just as a hack.
> 
> How would you detect such a hack then?
> 
> In my opinion 31k is a serious amount (about a half of both) that is a strong suggestion of the problem, at least.


there is no problem with 2 different tags fitting for the same kind of thing. These are also different in scope, leisure=nature_reserve is for all kind of natural protected areas, while boundary=protected_area is for all kind of protected areas. It appears to be very detailed at first glance, but if you look at the actual tagging almost one third misses the most basic information (protect_class) and the long list of additional tags suggested in the wiki contains some questionable items and instructions. E.g. protection_aim, protection_ban and protection_instructions don’t seem to be suitable for a tag value, even more as it is not documented how to apply them.
E.g. protection_object: the wiki says it should describe what is protected (but not in detail, says again the wiki: “Preferably don´t list species or elements - therefor you should give a website-url.”), in actual values “recreation” is leading, second is “timber”: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/protection_object#values
valid_from is a rarely used duplicate of start_date, etc.

My suggestion for osm carto is to look at both tagging schemes for nature reserves. I wouldn’t drop support for leisure =nature reserve 


cheers,
Martin 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20171201/af1d114d/attachment.html>