If you're OK with using non-rendering tags you should use the established boundary=protected_area instead of something US specific ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Protect_classes_for_various_countries ). If you want it to render the convention I've been using for national forests (copied from the way OSM Canada has imported their public lands) is to tag it with:
boundary=national_park boundary:type=protected_area +detailed protected_area tags. On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote: > > > > a search for 'Golden Spike' yields nada. I was about to draw a > > boundary=national_park[3] around it with a name tag, so it would be a > > little easier to find. But it turns out the NPS has a boundary > > shapefile for all National Parks, Historic Sites, Rivers, Parkways, > > Lakeshores and more than a dozen other categories[4]. > > > > I wouldn't object to importing park boundaries. > > > > But, I find boundary=national_park odd, relative to the rest of > > boundary=*. For truly large parks, it makes some sense. > > A related issue is tagging the polygon rather than the boundary, and the > > landuse=conservation/leisure=recreatation_ground tagging (not really > > right for parks, but actually the combination describes the NPS > > mission). > > > > So I have a mild preference (not backed up by volunteering) to make the > > park boundary/polygon tagging a bit more baked before importing. > > > > Boundary is used on ways and relations (and even on nodes..). I don't > have a problem with using boundary ways if the boundaries are a set of > disjoint, simple polygons like in this case. It's a shame that they > are not rendered in default mapnik but that argument can't prevail > over logical classification arguments. > > Maybe we should just introduce a new set of boundary= tags for the > various NPS domains: > > 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? > > [1] Already in use, oddly 182 out of 183 uses are nodes, seems like an > unfinished or ill-advised edit session: > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/boundary=national_forest#overview > > -- > martijn van exel > http://oegeo.wordpress.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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
