This is one of those situations where we might split the tagging to firstly denote what is on the ground and secondly to give the various administrative and other conservation classifications and controls. A good start as you suggest would be to list conservation designations by country so that we can see if they generally fall into similar types. The physical tagging should be less onerous as we can survey what natural and built features and landcover exist.
Cheers Andy >-----Original Message----- >From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk- >boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason >Sent: 09 January 2009 8:23 PM >To: Tim Berners-Lee >Cc: Christopher Schmidt; talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - >landuse=conservation > >On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Tim Berners-Lee <ti...@w3.org> wrote: >> I'd like to propose a tag for conservation land - land protected from >> development. >> There was no alternative for tis tag in the thousands of areas which >> CRSchmidt >> imported recently from the Mass GIS database of open space in >Massachusetts. >> >> Details below and on the wiki at: >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/conservation >> >> Tim Berners-Lee > >It's very useful that this is being worked on, currently we have a >multitude of tags for conservation-ish areas, including: > >boundary=national_park >landuse=nature_reserve >landuse=national_park >landuse=conservation > >Internationally different countries may have different areas which may >be applicable to this proposal in partly or fully although they're >generally thought of as conservation areas. To name an example I'm >familiar with Iceland has several categories of conservation areas: > >Þjóðlenda (literally: "nation-land"): An are owned by the government >outside (or with severely restricted) private property, de-facto >protected from development although there are exceptions, like the >national road network, power lines, mountain huts etc. These have been >created from an effort of cataloging private property in the country >with conservation as an incidental afterthought. > >Fólkvangar: Designated areas maintained by municipalities intended for >outdoor and recreational use, not inherently protected from >development although most are. > >Friðlönd: Natural reserves intended to protect significant local flora >and fauna. Not protected from development as long as that purpose >isn't interfered with. For example Vatnsfjörður is a whole fjord >declared as a reserve but has roads, a hotel and other development. > >Náttúrvætti: Mini-conservation areas intended to protect a specific >feature, like a crater, waterfall, lake etc. > >Þjóðgarður (National park): distinguished from the previous three >essentially by being big, having a council that takes care of it, a >park ranger etc. > >I think that regardless of your proposal it would be very useful to >start an effort to collate the different types of conservation areas >within different national boundaries across the planet, similar to the >effort going on for boundaries themselves: >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boundary#10_admin_level_values_for_s >pecific_countries > >Based on that we might find more common denominators which could be >turned into official tags and recommended for use for the entire >planet. >_______________________________________________ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1884 - Release Date: 09/01/2009 >8:38 AM _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
