Hi, On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Jeffrey Ollie <j...@ocjtech.us> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote: >> >> boundary=national_historic_site >> boundary=national_historic_park >> boundary=national_forest[1] >> .... >> >> There are 37 classes in total, most of them with only a few instances. >> >> What do y'all think of that idea? > > Perhaps add a "us:" prefix to the value? > > boundary=us:national_historic_site > boundary=us:national_historic_park > boundary=us:national_forest
I like that idea, in spite of the boundary=national_park convention already in place. > Also, what about tagging for areas managed by the US Fish & Wildlife > Service (National Wildlife Refuges) and the U.S. Army Corps of > Engineers (recreation areas surrounding dams/lakes created for flood > control purposes, not sure if they have an official name). Is there any reason why we should not use a similar convention? boundary=national_wildlife_refuge etc. -- martijn van exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
