The problem I see with using protected_area right now (since it's not an accepted/rendered tag), is that an object can't have two values for they key "boundary". National forest objects can be huge mulitpolygons (e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1273907 ), having a boundary=protected_area version would mean duplicating the relation and that seems sloppy to me. I'm also not sure that National Forests & National Recreation Areas would qualify under protected_area because it seems focused on the IUCN nature reserve classifications, and National Forests & National Recreation Areas can be leased out for commercial/industrial use.
My goal is to be able to render a US-centric map of outdoor recreation type objects without messing with the "global view" OSM provides, which I why I wanted boundary=national_park to remain the main tag for these objects. I think that an additional key is the right plan, but I wanted to get a bit of consensus before I started tagging a bunch of things with it. Possible keys: national_park=national_forest # This was my first inclination, but now I'm thinking it doesn't offer enough depth, on the other hand it's simple or national_park=forest ownership=federal # MassGIS added an ownership tag to designate it's state forests, and pairs it with landuse=forest. I don't think a landuse tag is appropriate to designate national forests though, because there's nothing about a national forest that requires it to contain trees, and vast swaths of them don't. or national_park=forest admin_level=2 # There are already a bunch of state parks tagged as admin_level=2, but should the admin_level tag be used outside or boundary=administrative? or public_land=national_forest # There are a lot of open to the public BLM lands that don't seem like they belong under the national park category. Does public land deserve it's own key? On Jan 8, 2011, at 1:08 PM, tshrub wrote: > Hi Daniel, >> ... >> >> I've seen admin_level used to differentiate between state and >> national parks, but that doesn't distinguish between >> park/forest/monument/preserve. >> >> There is also the proposed boundary=protected_area, but while that >> provides a nice international baseline it still won't describe what >> kind of park it is in a US context. > on a global view (what OSM is for) it's confusing to catch every kind by name. > therefor is an "additional key"(-system), that might cover it? > may be elaborate one/them? > protection_object= > > > >> Also, since they're both boundary >> tags they'll need to be on separate relations which I won't be able >> to render nicely without a preprocessor. > ? I don´t know. > its difficult to distinguish between the boundary-types? > > > >> >> ... > best regards, t. > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
