I too don't think the leisure tag should be added to national parks as a
default.
What is the point then of the national park tagging?
Some sections of national parks are not available for leisure so the leisure
tag is inappropriate,
these include 'wilderness' areas.
Those areas have a higher level of protection - and should carry both an access
and a different protection value.
On 07-Dec-17 02:24 PM, cleary wrote:
In the wiki entry for "Key:leisure", the main statement is that the
leisure tag is for places people go in their spare time. That is why I
had thought that it was not an appropriate tag to use for places where
people cannot usually go.
However, if there is general agreement that this is an appropriate tag
to be added to nature protected areas, then I would be happy to use it
that way.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 12:29 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
On 07/12/17 10:54, cleary wrote:
Protected areas will be rendered on the map if the tag
"leisure=nature_reserve" is added. However not all nature protected
areas are open for leisure purposes (depending on one's definition of
"leisure"). Access may sometimes be restricted to research or
educational purposes or similar. It seems preferable that such areas be
tagged as "national_park" accompanied with an "access=restricted" or
similar tag.
I don't understand why you think tagging something leisure indicates the
access characteristics. Tagging leisure=nature_reserve no more indicates
public access than leisure=marina, leisure=swimming_pool, or
leisure=sauna. If you want to indicate access use the access tag.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
