[OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 11.12.2017 o 14:43, Greg Troxel pisze:

> The property that is denoted by leisure=nature_reserve is mostly
> separate from the protected area information.  It means that humans are
> able to hike in a land wich is in a natural state.

In the meantime I've made a reality check with Poland lately and now I 
think that local conventions could not be simply translated into 
protection class, so I agree that they are separate probably. For 
example most of national parks in Poland are IUCN class 2, but two of 
them are class 5. See my current report:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/603#issuecomment-350587768

So now I would not advocate for deprecating "nature_reserve", as this is 
local specific type/name of protected areas. What I still think is 
wrong, is the key "leisure=". I think "boundary=protected_area + 
protected_area=nature_reserve" would be better (we already use such 
scheme for amenity=social_facility for example).

> You're basically saying "I care about X, and you care about Y, and my
> caring about X is more important, so you are wrong."

I care for proper naming and clear database scheme, not for any 
particular features. Leisure is just a popular activity related to many 
nature reserves, but not for all - think of strict reserves. But all of 
them are meant for nature protection, by design.

> That's one person's opinion about some things.  The real world is
> complicated and "protected" is very complicated.    Certainly around me
> there are "wildlife refuges" that allow deer hunting (to protect plants
> and toher animals from deer!).

Yes, you are right that there are many views on how the protection is 
implemented. However "protection" is an umbrella term that binds all of 
the nature reserves (including "hunting allowed", "leisure allowed" or 
"voluntary protection"), but "leisure" does not include all of nature 
reserves.

> What I don't understand is why you dislike leisure=nature_reserve so
> much.  If you want to have boundary=protected_area control the rendering
> if both are set, whatever.  But there seems to be some notion that
> poeople using that tag causes you trouble, and that you have some basis
> to demand that they stop.

Of course I have some trouble, otherwise I wouldn't notice. But that was 
just a trigger to see the real tagging problem, which is bigger than 
just rendering. As I understand you, what you think is "any tag you 
like" is the only policy that really counts, no matter if the scheme is 
precise, coherent and has at least basic classification.

For example I think that:

boundary = protected_area
+ protected_area = nature_reserve/national park/landscape reserve/...
+ protect_class = n

is better than:

leisure = nature_reserve
boundary = national park
boundary = protected_area + protect_class = n

The first one allows to add many properties in a reach and structured 
way, while the second:
- has no hierarchy
- implies "leisure" for every nature reserve
- does not allow to use boundary=national park + 
boundary=protected_area, because they share the same key

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