I'm on board with a state park specific tag. I find protect class to be a clunky answer and not entirely humanly intuitive compared to something like leisure=state_park
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
