On 25/8/20 8:01 pm, cleary wrote:
This issue was raised on this list some time ago, perhaps four or five years, maybe more.
I am one of the mappers who has added "leisure=nature reserve" to many
protected areas since that time. While tagging for the renderer is generally
discouraged, a map without protected areas was perceived as a worse outcome.
I have not gone back to search the precise discussion. However it is my recollection that, at the time of
that list discussion, no "protected areas" were being rendered on the map and it was advised that
this was unlikely to change for quite some time. National parks, conservation parks, nature refuges etc etc
by various names are substantial and significant additions to the map. It was tragic that they were not being
rendered unless tagged as "boundary=national park" or "leisure=nature reserve".
I've done a little hunting and you are correct, protected areas are still not
being rendered.
It is my recollection that, although not all protected areas are intended for leisure, it
was considered preferable to include the "leisure=nature reserve" tag for
protected areas classes one to six until such time as protected areas were rendered on
the map.
If the rendering situation for "protected areas" has changed, then I am open to removing
the "leisure=nature reserve" tags. However if removing the tags leads to complete
removal of the areas from the map, then I think it remains one of the few areas where we tolerate
tagging for the rendering outcome.
OK. 'They' are working on it but still no cigar.
I remain opposed to other tags intended to achieve particular shades of green or other
colours on the map, I also agree that natural features such as "natural=wood"
etc be mapped separately as they are rarely bounded precisely by the boundaries of the
protected area.
Problem then becomes mapping the tree area.
I might do that misusing scanaerial as a first pass to get a rough map of the
trees.
That should remove the tree tagging from protected areas and have the tree area
mapped at least roughly.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020, at 8:59 AM, Warin wrote:
Hi
I have come across a new mapper that has changed the tagging to change
the shading.. i.e. tagging for the render.
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89852186
However .. on looking around ...
It looks like many of the protected areas have, in the past been tagged
this way!!!
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/56255423
The tag nature reserve was applied in 2010.
The tag forest was applied in 2012.
My thoughts...
Both tags should be removed..
The "protected areas" are rendered in a certain way and that rendering
should not be artificially changed by adding other tags.
Certainly tagging the tree area ... fine but I find it hard to see why
the surrounding tree area is left unmapped.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
