2010/1/5 Craig Feuerherdt <craigfeuerhe...@gmail.com>: > John is right about the distinction between the "landuse" & "natural" tags. > "landuse" is about what is on the ground (trees, farming etc). I am assuming > national/state/other parks/areas should be attributed with the "natural" > tag, but "natural=what"?
This has been discussed several times on the main list. The problem is that landuse is used for two (sometimes contradictory) purposes - what is one the ground (cover) and what it is used for (use). Some landuse tags are one, some the other, some are both. There is a bit of a push to try and sort this out, but nothing has come of it yet that I know about. For large parks, I would think that you would want to map the boundaries as an admin boundary, and the landuse of the various parts of the park as a separate issue. It's not uncommon to have a single large batch of trees, some of which are in a park and some not, or in a separate park (eg one national and one state). And to have various parts of a park to have different landuse - recreation areas, natural preserves, etc. Stephen _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
