On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:05 PM, ajt1...@gmail.com <ajt1...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 30/11/2017 13:46, Daniel Koć wrote: >>> >>>> 1. Currently leisure=nature_reserve (old scheme) and boundary=* (new >>>> scheme) are frequently tagged in parallel, and it looks like the old scheme >>>> is used as a hack just to make it visible on default map. >>>> >>> >>> Just to chuck one example in - I've tagged lots of >>> "leisure=nature_reserve" and almost no "boundary=protected_area; >>> protect_class=XYZ". The reason is simple - nature reserves where I'm >>> likely to be mapping often have a sign saying "XYZ nature reserve". There >>> isn't going to be a sign helping me work out what "protect_class" in OSM it >>> is, so that doesn't get mapped. It's also nothing to do with "what gets >>> rendered"; I actually render my own maps and map quite a lot of stuff that >>> isn't displayed there :) >>> >> >> Seems like it wouldn't be too difficult to consider the two as equivalent. >> > > Not exactly. Some protected areas are cultural/social/heritage protected > areas. Specifically those tagged with protect_class=21 to 29. > I meant the specific protect_class tags referring to nature preserves specifically.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
