I had looked at this a few years ago. I edited one area , making it part of two relations : South West Woodland Nature Reserve (relation 5825677) South West Woodland Nature Reserve - Hiawatha Precinct (relation 7477098)
The first relation includes all twenty or more areas that comprise the reserve, while the second shows just the particluar local area with its particular name. The reason I did not try to add names for more precincts or sub-areas is that I could not, at the time, find a permitted source for the names. Looking now, I see that I was remiss in not adding a source for the name of the Hiawatha Precinct - I had visited the area and I am guessing it was probably signposted or there was some other local source. Not sure if the names of all precincts are now available to OSM - if so, I think use of dual relations works well. On Mon, 16 May 2022, at 8:31 PM, Little Maps wrote: > Hi folks, some advice please… > > In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves > (those that include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to > be given the generic name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South > West Woodland Nature Reserve” or “River Murray Reserve”). For example, > the South West Woodland Nature Reserve across western NSW has >20 > isolated segments, all called the same name: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5825677#map=7/-34.313/146.485 > > On the ground (and in agency management plans) many, but not all, of > these patches are known and signposted with different names for > different patches. The ones I know are compound names comprising the > “local patch” name plus the name of the broader reserve network, e.g. > “Collendina Murray Valley Regional Park”. (Which was named after > Collendina State Forest when the SF was subsumed into the newer “Murray > Valley Regional Park”.) > > I’d like to add some of these reserve names to OSM to reflect the names > that are signposted on the ground and am seeking feedback on (1) > whether this is considered desirable, and (2) if so, the best way to do > so. > > I’m hoping that there’s a simpler way to add different names to members > of a broader boundary relation. But, if not, as best I can see, this > change would require: (1) removing the individual patch from the > boundary relation for the entire reserve network, (2) creating a > separate polygon or m/polygon for the isolated segment using the > existing imported line work, and (3) entering the new name for the > isolated segment plus other tags from the broader network into the > newly separated patch. > > This impacts on the awesome work that was done to import all of the > CAPAD boundaries and may complicate future updates to the network. > However, given the huge area that some of these reserve networks cover, > I believe it’s important to include the names that individual reserves > are signposted as and known in the regions. > > Can I have some feedback on this proposal please? Many thanks, Ian > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
