Oh, I should mention that the 'leisure=nature_reserve' is a concession to current rendering practice. It is not inaccurate - all of the areas that I tagged thus are in some way reserved for the processes of nature - but it is imprecise. At such time as 'boundary=protected_area' becomes something that renderers recognize more widely and treat in some sensible manner, 'leisure=nature_reserve' becomes superfluous on most of the areas. We might then decide that a nature reserve is something more or less than a protected area, but right now, the two are nearly synonymous.
I am extremely reluctant to remove the 'nature_reserve' tagging until and unless there is better rendering. I've been waiting several years. There's another political swamp there - protected_area rendering depends on implementing hstore on the main database, which ties into a whole raft of unrelated issues. I mostly wouldn't care, since I render my own maps, but (a) I don't have the resources to keep up with minutely updates, and use the main map occasionally to verify that something uploaded as expected, and (b) I do care that the main map show significant features that the general public actually cares about - and large parks and wilderness areas are certainly among those features. On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:10 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea < stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > As someone who has been around and around and around with this > (landuse=forest on National forests) for the better part of over seven > years, I agree with Steven, Paul, Elliott and Tod here. There has emerged > a great deal of harmony and consensus on this topic, but I agree we could > and should sharpen it up into a Best Practice. The fact that it gets > re-hashed means we need to do this, preferably putting the results into our > wiki. > > I DID tag landuse=forest on National Forests, but the > boundary=protected_area tagging scheme evolved since, and with wide > concurrence, it is better than what was. (The tags landuse=forest and > natural=wood "devolving" into something which is now in a still-tangled > "land cover" bucket should be solved, too). I also agree with the "it > always has been this way" sense that landuse=forest is something akin to > (if not actually) "managed timberland" and natural=wood is "more like" (but > necessarily so) "primeval forest." OK, natural=wood might be tagged on > second- or third-generation trees, but if they are now left alone and are > intended to be left alone, natural=wood is better than landuse=forest. > > SteveA > California > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
