W dniu 07.12.2017 o 17:04, Greg Troxel pisze:
I also object to deprecating leisure=nature_reserve. The protected_area scheme is too complicated for most people to deal with fully and leisure=nature_reserve has proved itself to be useful.
This way or another it seems to me that leisure= key is wrong and using boundary=protected_area (or even just boundary=) is proper.
Leisure is just a common, but not the inherent property of nature reserve - the protection is:
"Usage of a leisure key, actually, might contradict a protection status in a lot of cases, where nature reserve doesn't allow any leisure activities. Ownership and enforcement are totally different things from protection level. For example, in Russian Federation, there are huge state-owned protected areas with limited access intended for hunting. They have strict protection enforcement and they usually are equal to class 4 or 6. Private hunting lands with similar access restriction, management level, and enforcement exist in other countries. Someone might argue that if hunting is allowed, it is not a protection, but that's just a personal idea of protection."
[ http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kocio/diary/42861#comment40293 ]
Agreed. To me, the real rendering issue si the lack of showing protected area, and the tendency to show these features by an edge marking rather than some kind of fill.
There are some tricks to make rendering better and I'm gonna try them, but lack of classification of nature reserves is a bigger problem than just rendering on osm-carto.
We also use a workaround for airports and it works, but using hacks at all means that there is a deeper problem.
With rivers we don't even have a hack and this is the same problem with lack of classification for very popular kind of objects.
-- "My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple] _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
