Re: [Talk-us] PA State Parks
On 24 Mar 2010, at 18:47 , Tyler Ritchie wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Sven Lafebre wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been looking at state parks, state forests and state game lands > in Pennsylvania. I think Adam Killian uploaded most of these a year or > two ago—I don't know if he's on this mailing list. > > Most of these parks are tagged as physical areas. For example, state > game lands are natural=wood and leisure=nature_reserve. Unfortunately, > these tags don't always correspond to the actual land use. Moreover, > they are really administrative entities, not physical ones. So I would > like to change them to something similar to the scheme used for parks > e.g. in the Bay Area: > > boundary=national_park > admin_level=4 > park:type=state_game_land > > The underlying physical land use can then be mapped orthogonally to > this. > > Are there any objections to this? Am I forgetting anything? Please let > me know! > > I'd probably toss in some ownership tag as well. definitely if it makes sense, in this case state_game_land is a clear sign for the ownership in some areas parks or openspace is privately owned and such info is valuable > ___ > 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] PA State Parks
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 20:46 -0400, Sven Lafebre wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been looking at state parks, state forests and state game lands > in Pennsylvania. I think Adam Killian uploaded most of these a year or > two ago—I don't know if he's on this mailing list. > Hello. I am still here. The tags I used were just my best guess at the time. It won't hurt my feelings if you think you have a better tagging scheme. Incidentally, I got most of the shapefiles from http://www.pasda.psu.edu/ I got unofficial confirmation from an employee at the Fish and Boat Commission that this data was public domain. I know some of the SGLs have fields in them which look like farms in the satellite images, but really aren't. They're just grown for the benefit of the deer from what I understand. I also read in the news recently that the Game Commission and DCNR swapped some lands, so some State Forest Lands became State Game Lands and vice-versa. I don't know if this change has been reflected in the state datasets yet. I don't really have the time at the moment keep up with these kinds of things. --Adam ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] PA State Parks
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Sven Lafebre wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been looking at state parks, state forests and state game lands > in Pennsylvania. I think Adam Killian uploaded most of these a year or > two ago—I don't know if he's on this mailing list. > > Most of these parks are tagged as physical areas. For example, state > game lands are natural=wood and leisure=nature_reserve. Unfortunately, > these tags don't always correspond to the actual land use. Moreover, > they are really administrative entities, not physical ones. So I would > like to change them to something similar to the scheme used for parks > e.g. in the Bay Area: > > boundary=national_park > admin_level=4 > park:type=state_game_land > > The underlying physical land use can then be mapped orthogonally to > this. > > Are there any objections to this? Am I forgetting anything? Please let > me know! I'd probably toss in some ownership tag as well. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] PA State Parks
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Sven Lafebre wrote: > Most of these parks are tagged as physical areas. For example, state > game lands are natural=wood and leisure=nature_reserve. Unfortunately, > these tags don't always correspond to the actual land use. Moreover, > they are really administrative entities, not physical ones. So I would > like to change them to something similar to the scheme used for parks > e.g. in the Bay Area: > > boundary=national_park > admin_level=4 > park:type=state_game_land > > The underlying physical land use can then be mapped orthogonally to > this. I'm not sure if the tagging is correct, but that's probably the right sort of approach moving forward as people might want to micro-map the land cover. Cheers, Adam ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] PA State Parks
Hi all, I've been looking at state parks, state forests and state game lands in Pennsylvania. I think Adam Killian uploaded most of these a year or two ago—I don't know if he's on this mailing list. Most of these parks are tagged as physical areas. For example, state game lands are natural=wood and leisure=nature_reserve. Unfortunately, these tags don't always correspond to the actual land use. Moreover, they are really administrative entities, not physical ones. So I would like to change them to something similar to the scheme used for parks e.g. in the Bay Area: boundary=national_park admin_level=4 park:type=state_game_land The underlying physical land use can then be mapped orthogonally to this. Are there any objections to this? Am I forgetting anything? Please let me know! Thanks, —Sven ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
