Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)
Thank you all for your comments. I have now added access=no to the paths leading up to the site, and changed the site from tourism=viewpoint to military=bunker with an access=no added to the site for good measure. (Though historic=ruins would probably be as appropriate.) I have also changed the name from "Post-WWII observation point" to "Devil's Slide Bunker" which seems to be the commonly used name (and anyway the previous name was not a name but a description). There's a catalogue of bunker types on the wiki page and if anyone is in the mood, feel free to add the correct one. I think that in this particular case, even if the object is de-facto a tourist destination, tagging it as such invites too much misunderstanding (at least at a time when OSM data consumers, including our own OSM-Carto rendering, are generally not sophisticated enough to suppress advertising a tourist=* object when paired with access=no). The discussion has shown that some of you share this opinion and some would prefer to call a tourist spot a tourist spot even if illegal. I think that a nuanced approach is probably approriate; having the occasional illegal viewpoint on the map is not a big issue but in this particular case we have a fat sign directly at the site telling people to stay away, plus the site isn't off the beaten track but in a tourist-y area so a big tourist symbol on the map could tempt many to stop and look. I hope this is something people can live with. You're welcome to continue this discussion and if the community should come to a general agreement about how to tag tourist attractions with no access then I'm happy to see this changed. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 7:34 PM brad wrote: I'm with Kevin, SteveA, etc, here. In the part of the world that I live, a map without national forest & BLM boundaries is very incomplete. A useful OSM needs this. The useful boundary would be the actual ownership boundary, not the outer potential ownership boundary. Messy, I know. +1 In fact, true for all protected areas. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
