stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> writes: > However, the tag boundary=national_park is confused, as it is widely > overused, especially on STATE parks. Arguments are valid either way > whether to include or exclude it on State Parks. The reason appears > to be that boundary=national_park is mapnik-rendered as a pleasing > dashed green line, and name text appears at wide zoom levels (up to > z=6). Hence, the "overloading" of it on "non-national parks" so it > renders anyway.
I agree that boundary=national_park is confused, and to first order I think we should get rid of it. The first question is whether it's tagging a boundary, which is a line feature, or whether it is tagging the polygon. If it's a boundary, it should be tagging the line feature, and it's a bug for that to affect the rendering of the area. But that's how it is used now. I think national parks should have landuse=conservation leisure=nature_reserve like all other conservation/human-use-also areas. If we do want to tag park boundaries, I think we should step back and ask why, and then have a coherent park boundary scheme. national parks, state parks, municipal parks are in some sense really all the same, except different levels of government own and administer them. I agree that national parks are a bigger deal socially, but I don't see a big enough distinction to have a special top-level tag. I think it's also confusing for our international comrades that we use park in two totally different senses: national park, which is about a balance conservation/preservation and access local park, which is often a "leisure=recreation_ground" and not necessarily conservation (ball fields, etc.) local consevation area, which is not called park, even though it's far more like a national park in character (but not scale) compared to a local park
pgpQgPOkdG1B_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
