Re: [Talk-us] Mapping of State/county/national parks
> > boundary=national_park > ownership=national > operator="United States National Park Service" > > or > operator="United States National Forest Service" > operator="United States Bureau of Land Management" > etc. > makes sense to use just one boundary tag. easier to implement in the renderer and good enough for nearly all maps. also most users don't care if it's a national, state, county park special applications/users can use the operator tag. > > -Tyler > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mapping of State/county/national parks
> > Does boundary=national_park have nothing to do with US National Parks? I.e. > it's just a park at the national level? It would make more sense to me to just be a park at the national level, that makes it useful to all of the various national level parks which aren't National Park Service parks in the US, in addition to national parks in Canada, Mexico, China, Russia, Lesotho, etc. boundary=national_park ownership=national operator="United States National Park Service" or operator="United States National Forest Service" operator="United States Bureau of Land Management" etc. -Tyler ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mapping of State/county/national parks
Does boundary=national_park have nothing to do with US National Parks? I.e. it's just a park at the national level? Andy Tyler wrote: > Just tagging the underlying landtypes and uses is fine (aside from most > of them not being natural) but doesn't at all account for the difference > between scrubland/seashore/whatever where you will be shot to death if > you trespass (military installations) and that which you're free to roam > around on and is designated a park. > > > Then use the boundary key. If you way up each of the unique > sections, then create a multipolygon relation out of all of the > boundary ways and additional multipolygons for each of the various > landuses or ground covers. > > > Boundaries are a good solution, and are easy for the national lands set > aside for recreation boundary=national_park covers them nicely (and > renderers could easily decide to render them as filled green > areas--standard practice). > > Through a quick discussion on #osm I'm going with boundary=national_park > (for all parks that aren't urban parks), admin_level="whatever the > operator level is", operator="whoever the operator is" and > ownership="whoever the owner is" parsing that out to re-tag it > consistently later should be relatively trivial. > > Thanks for the discussion Adam, > > -Tyler > > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Andy PGP Key ID: 0xDC1B5864 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mapping of State/county/national parks
Just tagging the underlying landtypes and uses is fine (aside from most of them not being natural) but doesn't at all account for the difference between scrubland/seashore/whatever where you will be shot to death if you trespass (military installations) and that which you're free to roam around on and is designated a park. > Then use the boundary key. If you way up each of the unique sections, then > create a multipolygon relation out of all of the boundary ways and > additional multipolygons for each of the various landuses or ground covers. > Boundaries are a good solution, and are easy for the national lands set aside for recreation boundary=national_park covers them nicely (and renderers could easily decide to render them as filled green areas--standard practice). Through a quick discussion on #osm I'm going with boundary=national_park (for all parks that aren't urban parks), admin_level="whatever the operator level is", operator="whoever the operator is" and ownership="whoever the owner is" parsing that out to re-tag it consistently later should be relatively trivial. Thanks for the discussion Adam, -Tyler ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US Interstate ways alignment
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 15:23 -0500, Stephen Johnson wrote: > Some of the TIGER ways and nodes for Interstates in my area are way out of > alignment. They are all over the map if you'll forgive the pun. I have > several GPS tracks for most of the Interstate lanes. > > My question is what should I align the ways to? The center, inner or outside > lanes? Is there some consensus for it which I have't found yet? Ways should always be aligned as close to the center of the way as practical (and line-wraps should be set to as close to 72 characters as practical). signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mapping of State/county/national parks
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Tyler wrote: >> Why is landuse=forest not appropriate for parks/forests with the same uses >> but with a "lower" administrative classification? landuse=forest is for >> managed land with trees on it regardless of who manages it. > > Because they often aren't forests. (I said similar use) > Sometimes they're scrubland, beach, plains, dunes, rocky craginess, > volcanos, river deltas... So tag them with their appropriate landuse or natural tag. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features The National Seashore would be natural=beach for example. Park might be in the name, but fail to describe what's on the ground and that's OK. > The list goes on and on. I take landuse=forest to > mean a managed forest meaning they're harvesting trees, moss or whatever, > such as many state natural resource department's forest land or the National > Forest lands (excluding wilderness areas) in the United states. And often > parks at lower administrative classifications are set aside for recreation, > not natural preservation or for logging, farming, grazing or harvesting any > natural resources. > As the case is in coastal states, there are coastal state parks consisting > solely of beaches, and in the southwest of the United States there are state > parks consisting solely of desert. natural=desert > Additionally landuse=forest doesn't accurately portray all of the Bureau of > Land Managements lands--which account for 1/8th of the area of the US, of > which landuse=forest is only appropriate for ~20%. It also would be > entirely inappropriate for the United States National Grasslands, which are > like the National Forests in almost every aspect, except that they are > grasslands (and tagging them as such doesn't distinguish them from > surrounding non-public use/recreation grasslands). Then use the boundary key. If you way up each of the unique sections, then create a multipolygon relation out of all of the boundary ways and additional multipolygons for each of the various landuses or ground covers. Adam ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mapping of State/county/national parks
> > Why is landuse=forest not appropriate for parks/forests with the same uses > but with a "lower" administrative classification? landuse=forest is for > managed land with trees on it regardless of who manages it. > Because they often aren't forests. (I said similar use) Sometimes they're scrubland, beach, plains, dunes, rocky craginess, volcanos, river deltas... The list goes on and on. I take landuse=forest to mean a managed forest meaning they're harvesting trees, moss or whatever, such as many state natural resource department's forest land or the National Forest lands (excluding wilderness areas) in the United states. And often parks at lower administrative classifications are set aside for recreation, not natural preservation or for logging, farming, grazing or harvesting any natural resources. As the case is in coastal states, there are coastal state parks consisting solely of beaches, and in the southwest of the United States there are state parks consisting solely of desert. Additionally landuse=forest doesn't accurately portray all of the Bureau of Land Managements lands--which account for 1/8th of the area of the US, of which landuse=forest is only appropriate for ~20%. It also would be entirely inappropriate for the United States National Grasslands, which are like the National Forests in almost every aspect, except that they are grasslands (and tagging them as such doesn't distinguish them from surrounding non-public use/recreation grasslands). I'm all for using existing tagging schemes, but the vast majority of land in the United States and Canada classified as "parks" aren't of the form leisure=park. Personally, I would classify what is leisure=park (manicured greenery with duckponds and funnel cake vendors) as urban parks. -Tyler ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mapping of State/county/national parks
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Tyler wrote: > Hello all, > I've a question about mapping the different types of park. I've been using > boundary=national_park for national parks and forests and then tagging > national parks as landuse=nature_reserve and forests as landuse=forest I've > also been tagging ownership=national > However with state, county and city parks of similar wilderness use or of > more generic recreational use I'm at a loss. leisure=park is not appropriate > given the wiki definition "open, green area for recreation, usually > municipal." This is fine for city green spaces, but doesn't work for > state/county recreation areas which may be either wilderness or managed > trails, motorcycle tracks, boat launches etc. > nature_reserve isn't appropriate as they're usually not preserving nature > I have been tagging state and county parks which are not open green spaces > as parks for the time being, but if anyone has any other suggestions I would > love to hear them. Why is landuse=forest not appropriate for parks/forests with the same uses but with a "lower" administrative classification? landuse=forest is for managed land with trees on it regardless of who manages it. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Mapping of State/county/national parks
Hello all, I've a question about mapping the different types of park. I've been using boundary=national_park for national parks and forests and then tagging national parks as landuse=nature_reserve and forests as landuse=forest I've also been tagging ownership=national However with state, county and city parks of similar wilderness use or of more generic recreational use I'm at a loss. leisure=park is not appropriate given the wiki definition "open, green area for recreation, usually municipal." This is fine for city green spaces, but doesn't work for state/county recreation areas which may be either wilderness or managed trails, motorcycle tracks, boat launches etc. nature_reserve isn't appropriate as they're usually not preserving nature I have been tagging state and county parks which are not open green spaces as parks for the time being, but if anyone has any other suggestions I would love to hear them. -Tyler ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
