Hey Dan,
Dan S schrieb:
2015-11-02 11:24 GMT+00:00 tshrub <my-email-confirmat...@online.de>:
Hey Dan,
Dan S schrieb:
Hi all,
I went to check out a local nature reserve. It's currently in OSM as a
leisure=park. I would like to tag as leisure=nature_reserve, but this
one is indeed also a publicly accessible park, so I don't like the
idea of removing the park tag.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188492303
The southern end of it is closed to the public, so at the moment my
inclination is to retag the main polygon as nature_reserve, and to tag
a smaller polygon as park. Any better ideas than that?
this area is listed neither in natura2000.eea.europa.eu nor in
protectedplanet.net.
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Nature-protected-area>
If
=4 there would be *active* habitat-/species-management (trespassing
restrictions) ?
=5 there are longtime developed or grown and *large* areas with interaction
of people ("scenic values" - Ecology Park?)
=7 smaller area, protecting nature-features, like some vegetation ... or for
recreation (scenic values?)
It seems to me like protect_class=7
The IUCN-code gave a basic and gives an orientation for OSM, but the
protect_class doesn't reflect exact the IUCN-code.
So far its possible to add
boundary=protected_area
+ protect_class=7
+ protection_title=Ecology Park
+ name=Bow Creek Ecology Park
...
*But* in fact:
on its website the area too looks to a bigger part like a "park", with its
typical nature-recreation features.
So on the other hand again leisure=park?
I'm sorry but I don't understand you. I'm confused.
I said, it looks for me more like a park
(excuse my English)
* There's an area (the southern part) which has no public access, for
habitat management.
if the restriction comes from / is supported by the
*municipal/community*, I would say, the area-part can be tagged as
protect_class=7.
* The rest of it is park-like, except to be honest it's not very
pretty or scenic!
I think it's designed to be a place to educate city
kids about wildlife and nature. Also apparently good for birdwatching.
* The website about the area is misleading, it tries to pretend it's a
"park" in the traditional sense of being a nice place for a gentle
stroll... don't let the website confuse you.
than, if its an offical website, it spreads or publicise, that "park"
might be the aim of development?
I think you're right that it's not an official nature reserve, but I
don't know what re-tagging is best.
I'm living neither in London nor in Britain ...
so its up to you.
I wouldn't foil an offical view (maybe except its important for
navigation).
So simply the entire area as park - or/and maybe separate the smaller
restricted part as protect_class=7 ( as third tagging version :) )
regards,
tshrub
Dan
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
