Tod Fitch <t...@fitchfamily.org> writes: > I have noticed a couple of off-highway vehicle recreation areas that are > tagged with things that seem incorrect to me: As generic parks or as > protected areas.
The one near me (way/40263471, Hollister Hills State Vehicular Recreation Area, SVRA) I myself have tagged landuse=recreation_ground, but I've been taken to task for doing that, as it isn't one of these as our wiki defines it, even though the name of it seems like a good match (it isn't). However, I suffer from the same problem, as I don't know what a better tag is, either. California State Parks (who manages them) prioritizes them as "recreation opportunity," although their web site says "provisions in California law require actions to stabilize soils and to provide for healthy wildlife populations in OHV recreation areas." So there are some leisure=nature_reserve aspect to these, one could argue (but this is for the restoration of the lands for the primary purpose of offering the ORV recreational opportunity). I agree with you that neither leisure=park nor boundary=protected_area are appropriate on these sorts of areas. They are specifically set aside (by the state) as areas for rather intensive landuse by off-road vehicles, and they can be quite extensive. Hungry Valley SVRA is about 30 square miles in area, with well over 100 miles of ORV trails, not something small by any definition. > Consider the Hungry Valley State Vehicle Recreation Area [1][2][3][4] and the > Wildomar OHV Area [5][6]. It appears we are both in California and "suffer" from "how best to tag?" about these. Nor (as is Hungry Valley) is BOTH boundary=protected_area (it isn't) and leisure=nature_reserve correct. Plain and simply, "not." Hungry Valley even has at least two "inholdings" (areas internal to the SVRA) which ARE boundary=protected_areas, the Freeman Canyon and Gorman Cultural Preserves. Oddly, these are tagged boundary=national_park, which isn't quite correct, either. Located between two major earthquake faults, Hungry Valley is quite interesting geologically. > My problem is that I can’t tell from the wiki and taginfo what might more > appropriate or more accepted tagging. It seems there is tagging for tracks > used for motocross. And people have used access tags for ATVs. But I don't > see a documented tagging for an area that contains a trail system for use by > multiple types of off-highway vehicles. I have some thoughts on what might be > appropriate, but would rather hear from others. I'm coming up empty of "what to do?" but I am finding quite a few of these with quite-poorly tagged boundaries. Surely, OSM can do better than this, but Tod asks an excellent question: "with what tags, please?" SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
