>
> Presumably these were the original conditions to get the funding? Having
> mapped Ardleigh Millennium Green since the start of this thread I know that
> has a playground, or at least “play equipment”. There are also photos of it
> on the parish council website[1]. So I'm guessing this has been
Rob wrote:
> The fact that the land is designated a millennium green means that
certain
> conditions exist. Quoting from wikipedia:
>
> * not more than 10% of the land should be made/left as hard areas
> * no buildings to be built on the land
> * the land should not be used for formal sp
What problem? None really. Just trying to add some details to this aspect
of OSM. Although the funding is provided by the lottery the land has a
designation within central government. The fact that the land is designated
a millennium green means that certain conditions exist. Quoting from
wikipedia
rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the whole area classifies as a park
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Green).
What problem are you actually trying to solve?
Presumably whoever mapped the area originally would have picked
appropriate tags for whatever components make up a particular
rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
But can you really call Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens and CROW
Open Access Areas "reserves"?
I've used "designation=access_land" for that CROW act access areas, in
addition to tagging whatever's actually there.
Cheers,
Andy
(to the list this time!)
__
On 4 July 2012 15:19, wrote:
> I'm not intending to twist an existing tag (some of which are highly debated
> anyway - e.g. landuse and landcover), just trying to identify which if any
> are of use for these cases. Okay which is preferred out of:
>
> * designation = millennium_green (or doorstep_
Hi All,
I think the whole area classifies as a park
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Green). Further I don't follow the
argument of creating new tag keys. Without some form of discussion we risk
ending up with many different ways of doing the same thing (not good for
data consumers).
I
>> are clearly gardens, some parks, some nature reserves. Please do not
>> retag these features to some perceived standard. I would also avoid
>> overloading the designation key - better to have an explicit key than
>> to reuse and existing key.
>>
>> About the only thing these area have in commo
There is the boundary=reserve proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reserve#Examples
But can you really call Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens and CROW Open
Access Areas "reserves"? Not so sure. Having said that I do like the idea
of a boundary=something, designatio
> Looking at the page on boundary=protected_area, perhaps class 7 is
the right one for Millennium Greens?
From
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Bac
kground
" There are no protected areas for the United Kingdom in the WDPA"
So I'd say "probably not"
Ed
_
Millennium Greens cover a wide range of on the ground usages. Same
are clearly gardens, some parks, some nature reserves. Please do not
retag these features to some perceived standard. I would also avoid
overloading the designation key - better to have an explicit key than
to reuse and existing
11 matches
Mail list logo
