Sorry for a previous empty message. I clicked send too early by an accident.
29 Apr 2019, 15:02 by g...@lexort.com: > So, I'd be in favor of having a way on the parcel boundary, and another > denoting the park-type sub-piece, calling those outer and inner and > tagging: > > outer: name="Foo State Park" > inner: leisure=park > relation wtih outer/inner: leisure=nature_reserve > > Or, perhaps not having a relation and putting leisure=nature_reserve on > the outer, with the expectation that renderers/etc. will resolve the > overapping landuse to the smaller geometry. > I think I would base deciding whatever leisure=nature_reserve (or boundary=protected_area) should be multipolygon excluding inner or cover both should be based on a situation. For example - is leisure=park area exempt from (all/nearly all) rules protecting remaining area? It is probably should be multipolygon. Is leisure=park area more intensively used but there are still some real restrictions? Probably boundary=protected_area should also cover it.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
