Re: [Talk-us] Parks, again

Thanks for the advice, Mateusz. I'll think about this some more, and if it still seems like a good idea I'll propose it on github. Andy Townsend gave me the same advice. Best regards - doug On 1/7/2018 4:06 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > For start: the best place to propose improvements to

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, again

For start: the best place to propose improvements to default map style is to propose it at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto In other places it is highly unusual that somebody involved in development map style will notice it and on issue tracker (

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, again

On 1/7/2018 12:52 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Doug Hembry > wrote: Briefly, my personal preference (for what it's worth), assuming rendering is added at some point for "boundary=protected_area", would be to drop

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, again

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Doug Hembry wrote: > Briefly, my personal preference (for what it's worth), assuming > rendering is added at some point for "boundary=protected_area", would be > to drop rendering for "boundary=national_park" and > "leisure=nature_reserve"

[Talk-us] Parks, again.

On 01/07/2018 21:11, Andy Townsend wrote: | To be honest, I wouldn't "suggest that OSM Carto do X" here - there's | been a lot of discussion already and no conclusions there. What I'd |suggest instead is that someone knocks up a rendering of California | based on what it would look like if

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, again

There is a lot to unpack in this discussion. First, OSM has the strong tenet that we should not code (data tag) for the renderer. That is sound advice and largely serves us well, but it fails to directly address that there is no point to being an OSM volunteer unless there ARE renderers which

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, again

Hi Mateusz, You are right that I raised the issue of the green fill for leisure=park because it is being used for large, wild protected lands, where it causes problems for "natural" and "landcover" tagging. If mappers only used it for smallish, low-protection, usually urban parks, as the wiki

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, again

On 06/01/2018 21:11, Doug Hembry wrote: (lots snipped, pretty much all of which I agree with) IMHO, AT THE VERY LEAST, the background green fill for leisure=park could and should be dropped by openstreeetmap-carto - it is unnecessary, causes problems, and can be replaced by natural=* or

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, again

On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 21:11:04 + Doug Hembry wrote: > IMHO, AT THE VERY LEAST, the background green fill for leisure=park > could and should be dropped by openstreeetmap-carto - it is > unnecessary, causes problems, and can be replaced by natural=* or > landcover=* .

[Talk-us] Parks, again

Greetings everyone.. I have a stake in this discussion, being resident in CA and dealing regularly with the representation of the various state and local parks, Open Spaces, Ecological Reserves, water company lands, National Parks and Forests, etc, etc, with which this state is blessed. It's a

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, again

On January 4, 2018 at 6:21:03 PM PST, Bradley White wrote: >> I don't think the title >> given to a piece of land should necessarily have bearing on the data >> representation, in the same way "Hampstead Heath" doesn't get >> "natural=heath" just because it's in the

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, again

On January 4, 2018 at 6:21:03 PM PST, Bradley White wrote: >> As you say "feel like Type 2" I think is where it fuzzies in my mind. Parks >> go to 3, 4, even 11 and beyond. Parks have a wide range of "experiences" >> besides 1 and 2. > > So do roads. There are

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, again

> As you say "feel like Type 2" I think is where it fuzzies in my mind. Parks > go to 3, 4, even 11 and beyond. Parks have a wide range of "experiences" > besides 1 and 2. So do roads. There are countless kinds of roads, with varying levels of importance and physical features. Instead of

Re: [Talk-us] Parks, again

On Jan 3, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > I think the National Park term causes a lot of problems. As I see it, > there are two kinds of places: > > 1) a natural area with some accomodation for human use, which is mostly > natural except for a few bits. > > 2) a