[OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 07.12.2017 o 17:04, Greg Troxel pisze:
> I also object to deprecating leisure=nature_reserve.  The protected_area
> scheme is too complicated for most people to deal with fully and
> leisure=nature_reserve has proved itself to be useful.

This way or another it seems to me that leisure= key is wrong and using 
boundary=protected_area (or even just boundary=) is proper.

Leisure is just a common, but not the inherent property of nature 
reserve - the protection is:

"Usage of a leisure key, actually, might contradict a protection status 
in a lot of cases, where nature reserve doesn't allow any leisure 
activities. Ownership and enforcement are totally different things from 
protection level. For example, in Russian Federation, there are huge 
state-owned protected areas with limited access intended for hunting. 
They have strict protection enforcement and they usually are equal to 
class 4 or 6. Private hunting lands with similar access restriction, 
management level, and enforcement exist in other countries. Someone 
might argue that if hunting is allowed, it is not a protection, but 
that's just a personal idea of protection."

[ http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kocio/diary/42861#comment40293 ]

> Agreed.   To me, the real rendering issue si the lack of showing
> protected area, and the tendency to show these features by an edge
> marking rather than some kind of fill.

There are some tricks to make rendering better and I'm gonna try them, 
but lack of classification of nature reserves is a bigger problem than 
just rendering on osm-carto.

We also use a workaround for airports and it works, but using hacks at 
all means that there is a deeper problem.

With rivers we don't even have a hack and this is the same problem with 
lack of classification for very popular kind of objects.

-- 
"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]