I presume that a single closed way for an area would work - I think I might have done it somewhere but I don't recall where. The Hiawatha precinct was memorable because of its unusual name.
On Tue, 17 May 2022, at 2:44 PM, Little Maps wrote: > Thanks Cleary, that’s an interesting approach. Two questions: (1) would > you be open to the same approach being used if the local relation > contained just a single closed way, rather than a pair of polygons as > in your example? (2) in your example, the relation for the local area > contains just the boundary tag and the local name tag, and all the > other tags that describe the entire network are provided in the broader > relation. This seems to be a good way to avoid duplicating tags > unnecessarily? > > As far as I know, we don’t have permissions to use gov maps that show > the names of individual reserves. Like you I have used signs at reserve > entrances as the source of local names. Thanks again, Ian > >> On 17 May 2022, at 1:00 pm, cleary <o...@97k.com> wrote: >> >> >> 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 _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
