On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Adam Franco <adamfra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for another fabulously detailed reply Kevin! > > So it sounds like I'm on the right track then and it makes sense to leave > the broad outer boundaries as *boundary=national_park* and use the > *boundary=protected_area > + leisure=nature_reserve* combo for the smaller US Forest Service-owned > parcels. > That's what I did when I reimported the Adirondack and Catskill data. There wasn't a clear consensus that the tagging was 'right' - but nobody really complained after the job was done. The tagging that I used is described in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NYS_DEC_Lands In the Catskills, there was a second category of public land: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import:_NYCDEP_Watershed_Recreation_Areas I believe that it will be important, if anyone does get around to using the protected_area tagging, that protect_class and protection_object be something reasonable; that's something that's likely to affect the rendering. I'm not all that familiar with GMNF, so I don't know if there are a range of protection classes in it the way there are in the New York forests.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
