Sorry for the delay in responding to the thread I started... On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Russell Deffner <russdeff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am sure you probably know this, but maybe others on the list do not – > if you’ve seen/heard of the cartoon “South Park” – it’s actually named > after one of those geographic features described in that second definition > Great example that many people can probably relate to. There is also a "North Park" (on CO 14 West of Cameron Pass). > ; this one: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3387601#map=10/39.1482/-105.8945 – > which is my handy work, and no, it’s not ‘complete’ and yes it is a bit > hard to define; but ask any local and they’ll know the general area that is > ‘South Park’ the ‘flat part’ surrounded by mountains. I’m actually mapping > the ‘interior features’ first (such as residential and smaller forested > areas) before ‘stretching the park polygon over top.’ > Nice work, and I am glad that someone is putting these "parks" on the map. I have always considered these "parks" to have no hard boundary (sort of like a valley), and so was unsure of how to map them. I do think that these "parks", along with valleys and a few other named geographic features should be in OSM. > > > > I have the relation tagged with name=South Park and natural=grassland > because in my opinion that is what is ‘most common’ as far as a ‘defining > map feature’ besides the relatively – but definitely not consistent – > elevation. However, now I wonder if creating natural=park or a similar tag > might be better. > I don't know about "natural=grassland", by definition a "park" is "mostly open", and that openness could be tundra, marsh or bare rock as well as grassland. On the other hand I see "natural=park" creating confusion, as people will start using it for recreation areas. > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote: > > I see these parks (e.g. Estes Park, Colorado) as sort of being > geographical features like hills and sort of being (not necesssarily > settlement-based) place names. So maybe changing them to > place=locality, and maybe also adding some sort of natural=flats tag. > This seems to be a good idea until such time as there a better tag. Small detail, "flats" should probably be "flat" to be consistent with other tags. On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Steven Johnson <sejohns...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would think USGS might even be interested in some sort of collaboration > to clean up all the GNIS points. > You have a great idea, however, they have an issue with ODbL Very frustrating. Mike
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
