Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

2017-12-03 4:05 GMT+01:00 Daniel Koć : > > 1. As I currently understand it, nature reserve is _always_ a type of > protected area, to begin with. > > We were talking on osm-carto ticket with some people about private > reserves and even when someone told me "it's not about

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

Daniel Koć writes: > W dniu 07.12.2017 o 17:04, Greg Troxel pisze: >> I also object to deprecating leisure=nature_reserve. The protected_area >> scheme is too complicated for most people to deal with fully and >> leisure=nature_reserve has proved itself to be useful. > >

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

W dniu 07.12.2017 o 17:04, Greg Troxel pisze: I also object to deprecating leisure=nature_reserve. The protected_area scheme is too complicated for most people to deal with fully and leisure=nature_reserve has proved itself to be useful. This way or another it seems to me that leisure= key is

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

Christoph Hormann writes: > On Thursday 30 November 2017, Daniel Koc4‡ wrote: >> >> I'm thinking about changes in rendering of protected areas on >> osm-carto and I wanted to give community a hint, because it's a >> popular kind of objects. > >> 1. Currently

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

I do agree with Christoph here, tag depreciation should be discussed outside of the scope of osm-carto. Daniel, this all thread looks like you want to promote a tagging scheme for the primary reason you can't make it look nice on the slippy map. That's really not helping tagging discussions!

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

W dniu 03.12.2017 o 11:06, Christoph Hormann pisze: As said before: *do not mix rendering and tagging discussions*. I don't fully understand what you're suggesting (it's a long, complex sentence), but I feel you're  accusing me of something bad. Please note that the first point about

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

On Sunday 03 December 2017, Daniel Koc4� wrote: > > TL;DR summary: I think that for now we should render all the existing > tags with osm-carto, but make some of them appear earlier to > encourage smooth migration to a more precise scheme. You are clearly out of line here - the suggestion that

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

Thanks for the comments! They help me to get the bigger picture, which is not visible from just the tag names and definitions. TL;DR summary: I think that for now we should render all the existing tags with osm-carto, but make some of them appear earlier to encourage smooth migration to a

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

On 30/11/17 13:46, Daniel Koć wrote: Hi, I'm thinking about changes in rendering of protected areas on osm-carto and I wanted to give community a hint, because it's a popular kind of objects. There is a fresh discussion about it from this comment on:

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:05 PM, ajt1...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> On 30/11/2017 13:46, Daniel Koć wrote: >>>

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:05 PM, ajt1...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> On 30/11/2017 13:46, Daniel Koć wrote: >> >>> 1. Currently leisure=nature_reserve (old scheme) and boundary=* (new >>> scheme) are

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:05 PM, ajt1...@gmail.com wrote: > On 30/11/2017 13:46, Daniel Koć wrote: > >> 1. Currently leisure=nature_reserve (old scheme) and boundary=* (new >> scheme) are frequently tagged in parallel, and it looks like the old scheme >> is used as a hack just

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

sent from a phone On 30. Nov 2017, at 23:09, Daniel Koć wrote: >> 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

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

On 30/11/2017 13:46, Daniel Koć wrote: 1. Currently leisure=nature_reserve (old scheme) and boundary=* (new scheme) are frequently tagged in parallel, and it looks like the old scheme is used as a hack just to make it visible on default map. Just to chuck one example in - I've tagged lots of

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Daniel Koć wrote: > Hi, > > I'm thinking about changes in rendering of protected areas on osm-carto > and I wanted to give community a hint, because it's a popular kind of > objects. There is a fresh discussion about it from this comment on: > >

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

On Thursday 30 November 2017, Daniel Koc4� wrote: > > I'm thinking about changes in rendering of protected areas on > osm-carto and I wanted to give community a hint, because it's a > popular kind of objects. I have no definitive opinion on the tagging question but i consider your approach here

[OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

Hi, I'm thinking about changes in rendering of protected areas on osm-carto and I wanted to give community a hint, because it's a popular kind of objects. There is a fresh discussion about it from this comment on: