On 12/07/2010, at 9:06 PM, Markus wrote:
Also I have noticed in potlatch the coastline seems to render better also
when having the coastline separate as it will draw the coatline even if the
park goes over it.
Yep, sounds like a good plan. I think this can happen a bit because
- Original Message -
From: Markus marku...@bigpond.com
To: 'James Livingston' li...@sunsetutopia.com; 'OSM Australian Talk
List' talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Queensland parks, forests and conservation areas
One thing to add
PM
To: OSM Australian Talk List
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Queensland parks, forests and conservation areas
On 04/07/2010, at 8:11 PM, Markus wrote:
Had a look,
I like it.
It is good you also have added leisure=nature_reserve or landuse=forest as
it will render with default settings with mgkmap
...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of James Livingston
Sent: Monday, 12 July 2010 8:11 PM
To: OSM Australian Talk List
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Queensland parks, forests and conservation areas
On 04/07/2010, at 8:11 PM, Markus wrote:
Had a look,
I like it.
It is good you also have added leisure=nature_reserve
Livingston
Sent: Sunday, 4 July 2010 10:00 AM
To: OSM Australian Talk List
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Queensland parks, forests and conservation areas
On 30/06/2010, at 7:48 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
Is it worth using an additional
classification:qld=national_park|conservation_park|state_forest, etc
On 30/06/2010, at 7:48 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
Is it worth using an additional
classification:qld=national_park|conservation_park|state_forest, etc.
(or similar), just to make things extra clear?
That is, when you use a rule like Conservation Parks get
boundary=protected_area, I think it
Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 30 June 2010 7:19 AM
To: James Livingston
Cc: Markus; OSM Australian Talk List
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Queensland parks, forests and conservation areas
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM, James Livingston
li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Queensland parks, forests and conservation areas
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM, James Livingston
li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
Here's what I've currently got, any more comments?
...
Is it worth using an additional
classification:qld=national_park
On 28/06/2010, at 11:10 PM, Markus wrote:
Sound good to me to leave the GLR number and Ecolink if you put it with a
standard osm key.
Here's what I've currently got, any more comments?
1) National park get boundary=national_park and leisure=nature_reserve. Should
any of the standard,
: James Livingston [mailto:li...@sunsetutopia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 June 2010 9:20 PM
To: Markus
Cc: 'OSM Australian Talk List'
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Queensland parks, forests and conservation areas
On 28/06/2010, at 11:10 PM, Markus wrote:
Sound good to me to leave the GLR number and Ecolink
On 29 June 2010 23:18, Markus marku...@bigpond.com wrote:
I am not sure if it is an approved tag. Although I quite like the idea of
it.
If it serves a useful purpose and it doesn't duplicate the
functionality of another tag already well used, then just use it,
tags don't need to be official,
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM, James Livingston
li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
Here's what I've currently got, any more comments?
...
Is it worth using an additional
classification:qld=national_park|conservation_park|state_forest, etc.
(or similar), just to make things extra clear?
That is,
On 29 June 2010 21:49, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
3) State Forests get landuse=forest. Any leisure activities (e.g camping) get
marked as their own thing, like tourism=camp_site, which isn't in this dataset
4) Forest Reserves and Timber Reserve (which are often adjacent to
On 30 June 2010 11:55, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you actually going to put the fact that it is a State forest
anywhere? Sure, landuse=forest is not a problem, but some sort of tag
stating that it is a state forest (as opposed to private land) sounds
appropriate.
Most state
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, John Smith wrote:
State forests aren't the same thing as national parks, state forests
are government operated logging areas...
not necessarily.
In NSW
it was that state forests had really loose rules about human recreation and
national parks had very heavy handed rules
so
June 2010 9:54 AM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] Queensland parks, forests and conservation areas
Hi all,
I've been looking at http://data.australia.gov.au/127, which contains all
the national parks, state forest, conservation areas and so on in
Queensland. If no-one else had
On 28/06/2010, at 8:16 PM, Markus wrote:
Forests
Landuse=forest
National Parks
boundary=national_park
leisure=nature_reserve
Sounds good.
Protected Areas
boundary=protected_area
protect_id=
Ah, the original data had IUCN codes, so I can put these back in as protect_id
1-6.
I
Australian Talk List
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Queensland parks, forests and conservation areas
On 28/06/2010, at 8:16 PM, Markus wrote:
Forests
Landuse=forest
National Parks
boundary=national_park
leisure=nature_reserve
Sounds good.
Protected Areas
boundary=protected_area
protect_id=
Ah
Hi all,
I've been looking at http://data.australia.gov.au/127, which contains all
the national parks, state forest, conservation areas and so on in
Queensland. If no-one else had been doing anything with this, I'd been
thinking about adding it to OSM.
Current practice seems to be tagging them
On 28 June 2010 10:24, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
Current practice seems to be tagging them all as boundary=national_park,
regardless of whether they're National Parks or other things like State
Forests. Would adding national_park=state_forest and similar to the tags be
a
20 matches
Mail list logo
