Hi Kevin, hstore support, which would allow rendering boundary=protected_area is being actively worked on the main style sheet. Its coming...
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1504 https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1975 Otherwise, I agree with your logic on tagging. Jason On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> wrote: > My big issue with this is that we - alas! - need to have something "tagged > for the renderer." > > Over on the other side of Lake Champlain and the Taconics, we have the > same problem with the Catskill and Adirondack Parks, which are protected > areas with an immense public-private partnership. (Something over half the > Adirondack Park is owned by New York State, and the rest is quite > restrictively administered by the Adirondack Park Agency. Its level of > protection exceeds that of any of our National Parks.) > > The problem is that boundary=protected_area does not render in any of the > map layers available from openstreetmap.org. People editing > protected_area's cannot see their results on the server, and newcomers to > OSM don't even know that we have them in the database. > > I'd say that the answer is, "fix the renderer" - and surely > Mapnik/Carto/... can handle it, since I use that toolchain to render my own > maps. The underlying issue is that to fix it in any of the default > renderings (OSM default, OpenCycleMap, etc.), 'hstore' would have to be > enabled on the server's database to get the 'protect_class' tag into the > system. For whatever reason, the server team has balked at doing this for > quite literally several years. I do not expect this situation to resolve in > my lifetime,. and I have ceased to request any support for protected area > rendering. Instead, I do most of my own rendering on maps such as > http://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test3.html, and accept the fact that I > will have a day or two delay in being able to retrieve any updates. (I > don't have the resources to accept minutely updates, so I depend on the > daily extracts at geofabrik.de. Often, I let my map fall several months > behind, when I'm not actively mapping). > > Most US mappers have simply accepted that the renderer will not be fixed. > The compromise that I used when reworking the Adirondack Park polygons was > not well received on this list, but at least nobody reverted the changes. > In that compromise solution: > > - the Adirondack and Catskill Parks as a whole were tagged > boundary=national_park. This tagging is close to the truth except that it > is New York State rather than a nation-state that administers it. Given the > US principle of separate sovereignty, I'm willing to live with this. > > - the individual state (and in the case of the Catskills, New York City) > owned parcels received the additional tagging of 'leisure=nature_reserve' > plus appropriate 'protected_area' tagging. That way, they are correct in > the new scheme and still render plausibly. 'Nature reserves' encompass many > different things, so I wasn't too uncomfortable with this tagging. > > - I seriously attempted to make appropriate choices for 'protect_class' > and related tags. This sometimes meant up-classifying relative to the IUCN > database. IUCN wants to classify the Adirondack and Catskill holdings no > higher than protect_class=6, because they don't enjoy national-level > protection. That's again a failure to understand the US legal system; the > State-level protection that they enjoy is far stronger than any Federal > protection: these two parks are read into the state constitution. I was > entirely comfortable giving the High Peaks or West Canada Lake wilderness > areas protect_class=1b. They are indeed protected wilderness, where Man is > a visitor who does not remain. > > The result of the compromise is, as you can see: > > - everything renders on the main page. The parks are at least visible. > (There has been at least one round with the National Forests that rendered > them entirely invisible.) > > - the 'landuse=forest' tag is not abused. There is no green infill on > tracts that are not forested. The system still presumes that > 'landuse=forest' means 'every square metre covered by trees - and cannot > cope with the idea of 'the landowner's intent is to use the tract for > forestry, but this particular bit, this year, is occupied by beavers' - > according to the OSM purists, that's no longer 'forest'. (For this reason, > I find 'landuse=forest' to be nearly useless: all the 'forest' tracts that > I've ever mapped have transient or permanent phenomena meaning that > individual pieces may be clearcut, bare rock, or open water at a particular > time.) > > - the 'leisure=nature_reserve' tag is only slightly abused. A wilderness > area, a wildlife management region, or a protected watershed (all of which > permit recreational use) are all reserved to nature, and no US English > speaker would be astonished at the tagging. I refuse to fight with the > purists on this issue. There is no other suitable tag available that will > ever be rendered on the main map. > > - the 'boundary=national_park' tag is abused on very few polygons, and can > be reverted if and when there is ever a rendering of the protected_area > status. I am not optimistic that this will occur. > > This issue has been discussed here many times before. The result is an > impasse. This is one of the issues where nobody has been able to span the > "US-European divide." I do not expect it ever to be resolved, so any > tagging plan will either be an awkward compromise or result in invisble > features. > > This is not a case of, "it's open source, so if you need it done, do it > yourself." I'd be perfectly willing to do it myself, if it were not for the > fact that "doing it myself" would involve building an entire server > infrastructure to support a different rendering of the main map. That's not > something within my capability. > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Adam Franco <adamfra...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I'm planning to do some cleanup of the Green Mountain National Forest in >> Vermont and figured it might be useful to provide the opportunity for >> feedback before embarking on this project. >> >> The Green Mountain National forest is currently mapped as two large >> outer-area relations that include large swaths of private land and many >> ways and relations that mark independent parcel boundaries -- the latter >> having a multitude of tag schemes. >> >> Outer area boundaries: >> >> - northern section: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2030450 >> - southern section: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1610349 >> >> Many parcel boundaries (examples): >> >> - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6850907#map=13/44.044 >> 4/-73.0668 >> - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6631735#map=12/44.007 >> 0/-72.9569 >> - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116060714#map=12/44.0123/-72.9418 >> - .... >> >> There is very little consistency in the tagging of the parcel boundaries >> -- many are tagged as boundary=national_park, others are tagged as >> boundary=protected_area. As well, many [most?] are tagged with >> landuse=forest even if they are sensitive areas (protected watersheds), >> wilderness areas (no logging allowed ever), designated recreation areas, or >> otherwise not open to logging. >> >> I propose to group all of the parcel boundaries into two super-relations, >> one for the northern half of the GMNF and one for the souther half of the >> GMNF. These super-relations would have: >> >> - type <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:type>=boundary >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:type%3Dboundary> >> - boundary <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boundary>= >> protected_area >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area> >> - protect_class >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:protect_class>=6 >> - protection_title >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:protection_title>=National >> Forest >> - protected <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:protected> >> =perpetuity >> - operator <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:operator>=United >> States Forest Service >> >> - leisure=nature_reserve (this seemed to be recommended in the >> "Okanogan-Wenatchee >> National Forest (landuse=forest and US National forests again) >> <https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-us@openstreetmap.org/msg16713.html>" >> discussion a few months ago) >> >> as described on US Forest Service Data wiki page >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Forest_Service_Data#National_Forest_Boundaries>. >> >> >> The members of this super-relations would have their own tags either >> normalized to the same values above the super-relation (maintaining >> additional parcel-specific details) or would have their duplicative tags >> removed. In particular, the boundary=national_park tag would be be >> normalized to boundary=protected_area and the landuse=forest tag would >> generally be removed. >> >> I'm planning to do all of this cleanup manually sometime soon and just >> wondered if anyone had any further suggestions. I guess an alternative >> process would be to reimport the parcel boundaries from the latest "Survey >> Boundaries maintained by the US Forest Service >> <https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php>" file, but I'm not >> sure if that might be more difficult or easier. >> >> Thanks for any input! >> Adam >> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Adam%20Franco >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
