We should discuss this at Github to get other ideas and opinions. In particular, please make a well-reasoned argument for why we need to supposed boundaries tagged on closed ways at #3785 - try to be concise and objective.
I think it may be difficult to get protect_class=21 rendered, unless the tag is more precisely defined. While you are using this tag specifically for recreation related protected areas, the current wiki page says that it can be used for “*Community life:* religious, sacred areas, associative locations, recreation” These should not be rendered in the same color as natural protected areas, and the difference between religious area and recreation is very large, so I think these would need different tagging and rendering differently. 3 options: 1) make a proposal to redefine the meaning of protected class = 21 to mean recreation only, then we might be able to render it if others use the tag frequently However, this would not match the IUCN classes that were originally used. 2) make a proposal for a new protect_class - maybe 28 - specifically for recreation areas, such as National Recreation areas and some State parks This would make a clearly defined tag without changing the existing meaning of protect_class=21 3) create a new tag, eg a) boundary=recreation_area b) boundary=state_park boundary=recreation_area or so something similar could be used for any protected area without requiring the use of multiple tags, and has the benefit of using plain English rather that a random number (I never can remember those), but it would be important to clarify the difference between this and leisure=recreation_ground and leisure=park. boundary=state_park would be really easy to use for any state or provincial-level Park, and would work like boundary=national_park. Mappers could tag any State of Provincial park just based on the title. But you would still need to use other tags like protect_class to distinguish the type of protection, if that really matters. -Joseph On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 6:56 AM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:10 AM Joseph Eisenberg > <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For your New York State park examples, protect_class=21 might be the > best option, so go ahead and add this tagging, in addition to tagging any > specific areas within that qualify as a leisure=park or nature_reserve > > > > But many State parks on the West Coast are similar to national parks, eg > many State parks in Oregon, Washington and California are protected because > they are areas of outstanding natural beauty. Silver Falls in Oregon is a > good example > > > > These types of State Parks can be tagged as boundary=protected_area with > protect_class=2 or =3 or =5 depending, or leisure=nature_reserve in many > cases. > > [Off list] > > As I said in public, you're right that if a different protect_class is > appropriate, you should use it. But I've yet to be in a place that > doesn't have at least some mixed-use State Parks of the type that I > describe, so we need tagging for them. (I've lived in multiple states, > on both coasts and in fly-over country.) > > Thanks for the work on making such objects render, particularly in > pushing for https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3785. > If it adds any grist to the mill, note that there are nearly three > thousand closed ways in North America that are protected areas or > national parks and do not wind up in the 'polygon' table. Query that > identified them is at > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3819#issuecomment-509865506 > . > The Wiki may be wrong (according to Paul) but the tagging is very well > established - and fewer than 20% of those protected areas came from my > imports. (OK, I'm an early adopter of protected_area). > > This also raises the issue of getting the protect_class=21 to render. > A rendering similar to nature_reserve would seem to be appropriate, > with the inside highlight colour the paler shade that is used for > leisure=park. (I've also been using protect_class=22 for 'State > Historic Site' but I'm open to other suggestions on that one!) > > In addition to 21 and 22, I've used protect_class=12 extensively for > 'Watershed Recreation Land' - which are basically tracts of forest > that a government has purchased so that they will not be developed, in > order to protect the water quality downhill or downstream from them. > New York City supports a lot of these - they are outside New York City > but protect its water supply, which comes in by an extensive system of > aqueducts. (As far as their legal status goes, New York City is simply > a government functioning as a private landowner, and the laws of the > county where the parcel is located govern.) I've also similarly used > protect_class=15 for "State Flood Control Area" - state-owned land > that's kept off the market because it's subject to sporadic > inundation, but is often open to public recreation, especially > hunting, when not flooded. I'm less eager about getting rendering for > 12 and 15 since they're all tagged 'leisure=nature_reserve' in > addition, and that's not even too inaccurate. > > So, what do you think? Do I have a chance of seeing 21 and 22 > rendered? It doesn't look insanely difficult, once the database is > rebuilt with the osm2pgsql change - but I've seen how much political > resistance there is, and I confess that I don't understand why there > seems to be considerable resistance entirely outside the technical > difficulties. >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
