On 30/06/2010, at 7:48 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > Is it worth using an additional > classification:qld=national_park|conservation_park|state_forest, etc. > (or similar), just to make things extra clear? > > That is, when you use a rule like "Conservation Parks get > boundary=protected_area", I think it would be nice to also record that > they are a conservation_park.
On 30/06/2010, at 11:55 AM, Stephen Hope wrote: > Are you actually going to put the fact that it is a State forest > anywhere? Sure, landuse=forest is not a problem, but some sort of tag > stating that it is a state forest (as opposed to private land) sounds > appropriate. boundary=state_forest, and similar? They all have it in the name as well, although that's obviously not ideal if you actually want to render them differently. I've put a small (~110kb) .osm file up at http://www.sunsetutopia.com/qld_parks_ready.osm.bz2 which contains the results of tagging and merging together the park sections (where they're split in the original data). Magnetic Island is the most complicated one I've done so far. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
