2009/10/4 James Livingston <doc...@mac.com>: > Right, so it turns out that my randomly chosen one was a complete > fluke - in most cases the World Heritage Areas and the National Parks > don't have the same boundaries. There is however a proposed tagging > scheme for UNESCO World Heritage areas/places, which will obviously be > useful.
Most of it seems sane, except for my comment below... > So for tagging, how about something like the following, with follow-up > work to check if the other WHAs are National Park boundaries too. > whc:criteria=7;8 <snip> > whc:criteria=8;9 This isn't a comment about what you have done, so please don't be offended, but I don't like it when multiple values are jammed into one field, it may be ok for human readability but I'd need to look up what 7, 8 and 9 are to know so it really isn't that human readable either. Not to mention that it becomes a nightmare if you ever want to do something sane with the data. I feel/think something better should be done, eg whc:criteria:7=yes whc:criteria:8=yes whc:criteria:9=yes _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
