Hi,
...
...
...
... A
problem might arise if a feature is at the same time protected for
different reasons.
If one feature/area is at the same time protected for different reasons,
but belongs to the same ID and you can´t catch that by additional taggs,
you can give
# a further relation to that line or you have to make
# a second boundary/layer (double, in the view of the ID),
to give individual data (contact, ...) to the reason too. (same
problem as without those protect_IDs ...)
Its not uncommon that areas cover/overlap eath other (there is a
including-hierachie: local regional national international).
otherwise its to discuss, to establish further distinct protect_IDs in
the 30th or 40th for the interstate and international (sometimes only
award-) 98-ID. But they are not too much, and I think/wish, we come
along with those about 30 main-IDs.
That sort of what I used, though it's changed a bit since then.
do you remember what?
There's also problem of marking it boundary=protected_area and
boundary=national_park at the same time.
its not intend to use both.
there is just a threat on gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.region.us
boundary = national_park in the US
there is a workaround-proposal:
boundary=national_park
boundary:type=protected_area
where later a bot can change the boundary tag
(may be possible(?), but today I don´t like that)
f.e. a protected_area
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44816271
... links
on the fraser-island I wouldn´t mix the protected_area (administrativ)
with the landuse and I would copy the line, make two (I think, thats
common?), because in the future, the vegetation will become more
distinguished.
...
best regards, t.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
