[OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 30.11.2017 o 17:38, Christoph Hormann pisze:

> 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.

> That is frankly just nonsense.  If rendering (or not rendering) features
> with leisure=nature_reserve, boundary=protected_area or
> boundary=national_park causes visual clutter in a map depends on if and
> how you render these features.  That is the responsibility of you as a
> map designer.  Blaming a tagging scheme for not being able to do that
> without visual clutter is a bit strange.

It's easy - with leisure=nature_reserve you don't have any 
classification system, so you have less tools to make a proper rendering 
decisions. The other solution is guessing or accepting the mess, which 
are poor options for me.

> Have you looked at if these classes are actually used consistently at
> the moment?  A tagging scheme with ~25 numerical codes as classes with
> fairly brief and abstract descriptions is not usually destined for
> success in OSM.

We don't need to check every single one of them, probably just selecting 
a nature related subset of them would be enough. Not everything should 
be rendered (like "community life" or "earth-moving area") and even just 
selecting national parks from the rest would be clear win for a start.

>> 4. The new scheme looks like more general than the old one, so it's
>> all that's we really need.
> Which is just another way of saying boundary=protected_area is much less
> meaningful than leisure=nature_reserve since the latter at least
> specifies it is nature protection while the former does not.

Just look at the classification, there's a cluster of such classes:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Nature-protected-area

> You are also contradicting yourself here - in 2. you say "the old scheme
> is too generic" and here you say "the new scheme looks like more
> general" - which is it?

By "generic" I mean "lacking details", which is bad.
By "general" I mean "encompassing all of this and more", which is good.

> but then drop arguing for certain tagging
> ideas based on your perceived needs for rendering.  Tagging decisions
> should be based on how mappers can best document their knowledge about
> the geography.  Not on what some developers find convenient for
> rendering.

In my opinion there's a better tagging scheme for documenting that 
knowledge, that's why I suggested deprecation. But that is just the 
opening of discussion, not the final solution.

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