On Thursday 30 November 2017, Daniel Koc4� wrote: > > I'm thinking about changes in rendering of protected areas on > osm-carto and I wanted to give community a hint, because it's a > popular kind of objects.
I have no definitive opinion on the tagging question but i consider your approach here highly questionable. More details on that in the following. > 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. Presenting leisure=nature_reserve as an 'old scheme' and 'boundary=*' as a 'new scheme' is a serious mischaracterization. The tags leisure=nature_reserve, boundary=protected_area and boundary=national_park all started being used around the same time. There is no old and new here. There are 62k uses of boundary=protected_area and 77k of leisure=nature_reserve and 31k of the combination - which does not really support your idea that the latter is used just as a hack. > 2. The old scheme is too generic and it causes visual clutter, > because all of the protected areas are displayed at once. That is frankly just nonsense. If rendering (or not rendering) features with leisure=nature_reserve, boundary=protected_area or boundary=national_park causes visual clutter in a map depends on if and how you render these features. That is the responsibility of you as a map designer. Blaming a tagging scheme for not being able to do that without visual clutter is a bit strange. > 3. New scheme has many classes defined, which would allow us to fine > tune the rendering (different zoom levels and only some of them). Have you looked at if these classes are actually used consistently at the moment? A tagging scheme with ~25 numerical codes as classes with fairly brief and abstract descriptions is not usually destined for success in OSM. > 4. The new scheme looks like more general than the old one, so it's > all that's we really need. Which is just another way of saying boundary=protected_area is much less meaningful than leisure=nature_reserve since the latter at least specifies it is nature protection while the former does not. You are also contradicting yourself here - in 2. you say "the old scheme is too generic" and here you say "the new scheme looks like more general" - which is it? On a general note: Please do not mix tagging discussions and rendering discussions - that is a recipe for desaster. If rendering considerations lead you to realize tagging issues and you want to discuss those that is fine but then drop arguing for certain tagging ideas based on your perceived needs for rendering. Tagging decisions should be based on how mappers can best document their knowledge about the geography. Not on what some developers find convenient for rendering. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk