If you're OK with using non-rendering tags you should use the
established boundary=protected_area instead of something US specific (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Protect_classes_for_various_countries
). If you want it to render the convention I've been using for
I would oppose deleting them. They do have real world significance because they
represent community boundaries in unincorporated areas, and the name that you
would use to search for an address these communities. McKinleyville, CA
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinleyville,_California) is as muc
e are also cases where the
tags are out of sync between point and polygon.
On Nov 11, 2010, at 9:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Daniel Sabo wrote:
>> I would oppose deleting them. They do have real world significance because
>> they represen
>> but the polygon is still a much better approximation that you would get with
>> just a node. While a node be able to tell you "unincorporated the stuff
>> north of Arcata is McKinleyville" it wouldn't convey that "west of 101 and
>> south of the river is not McKinleyville".
> Problem is if Ar
Resending to the list.
On Nov 12, 2010, at 12:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Daniel Sabo wrote:
>>> If it's not in GNIS, for example, that means it's not on USGS or other
>>> government maps, which narrows down the field consider
boundary=national_park gets stretched around quite a bit mapping the US, it's
being used for:
National Parks
National Forests
National Monuments
National Preserves
National Recreation Areas
State Parks
State Forests (not sure if any of these have actually been imported).
I've seen admin_level use
The problem I see with using protected_area right now (since it's not an
accepted/rendered tag), is that an object can't have two values for they key
"boundary". National forest objects can be huge mulitpolygons (e.g.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1273907 ), having a
boundary=pro
Thanks for your input to help sort this out.
So after more reading, I guess protected_area will work for these. When I first
looked at it protectedplanet.net was confusing me because it doesn't show
national forests, but at least according to wikipedia National Forests qualify
as Category VI.
What are you going to do when the route is part of more than one state highway
or bike route? You can't do a db query for ref:highway:ca:0, ref:highway:ca:1,
ref:highway:ca:n without doing expensive string comparisons, and you can't
explode a delimited list of refs without breaking the one key =
On Feb 5, 2011, at 7:14 AM, Craig Hinners wrote:
> Sure, relations get you an additional degree of normalization. And using
> relations to carry route/network tags gets the job done, granted. But at what
> cost?
>
> I've yet to hear a convincing argument that justifies the additional
> comple
Using semicolons brings us back to "impossible to query without string
manipulation".
I agree with you that multiple values per key would have been a better design
for many things, it still wouldn't solve the fact that there may be a set of
keys (e.g. names) associated with each ref rather than
11 matches
Mail list logo
