On 07/12/17 14:24, cleary wrote:
In the wiki entry for "Key:leisure", the main statement is that the
leisure tag is for places people go in their spare time.
Ignoring the obvious problem, which is that this is just the usual
sub-optimal tagging you get in OSM (should have been
I too don't think the leisure tag should be added to national parks as a
default.
What is the point then of the national park tagging?
Some sections of national parks are not available for leisure so the leisure
tag is inappropriate,
these include 'wilderness' areas.
Those areas have a higher
In the wiki entry for "Key:leisure", the main statement is that the
leisure tag is for places people go in their spare time. That is why I
had thought that it was not an appropriate tag to use for places where
people cannot usually go.
However, if there is general agreement that this is an
I also find it interesting that state forests in Australia are treated
quite differently then state forests in the US.
In the US they get borders which are thinner then national parks, whereas
here they just show up as a forested area (even if the entire state forest
is not actually covered in
I agree as I recently encountered this issue. Following the GitHub issue on
the protected area tag, it seems support in the renderer is a still the
source of a large amount of debate and argument because of the large number
of clases and regional variations in use of the tag.
Thanks,
Leith Bade
There are long-standing problems in relation to the rendering of
protected areas in OpenStreetMap. This is not surprising as there many
protection classes (there is provision for up to 99) including
nature-protected, resources-protected and social-protected areas.
Presumably various types of
6 matches
Mail list logo
