[OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:05 PM, ajt1047 at gmail.com <ajt1047 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 30/11/2017 13:46, Daniel Koć wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Currently leisure=nature_reserve (old scheme) and boundary=* (new
>>> scheme) are frequently tagged in parallel, and it looks like the old scheme
>>> is used as a hack just to make it visible on default map.
>>>
>>
>> Just to chuck one example in - I've tagged lots of
>> "leisure=nature_reserve" and almost no "boundary=protected_area;
>> protect_class=XYZ".  The reason is simple - nature reserves where I'm
>> likely to be mapping often have a sign saying "XYZ nature reserve".  There
>> isn't going to be a sign helping me work out what "protect_class" in OSM it
>> is, so that doesn't get mapped.  It's also nothing to do with "what gets
>> rendered"; I actually render my own maps and map quite a lot of stuff that
>> isn't displayed there :)
>>
>
> Seems like it wouldn't be too difficult to consider the two as equivalent.
>

Not exactly. Some protected areas are cultural/social/heritage protected
areas. Specifically those tagged with protect_class=21 to 29.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20171201/dca40b37/attachment.html>