Re: [Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves

[Gareth L]

The bounds of an area don’t mean there’s a barrier there. But a nature reserve 
does render on that map in a similar way to a tree line or hedgerow would be 
rendered.

I’d leave it as it is. The problem is appears to how it renders, rather than 
how it is mapped. It could be totally fine with a different tile set. It’d be 
better to try and get the standard Osm map rendering scheme tweaked. They do it 
fairly frequently.

Gareth

> On 5 Jun 2019, at 18:56, Martin Wynne  wrote:
> 
> At this location there is a large area of open sandy heath, forming a nature 
> reserve:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.3716/-2.2816
> 
> In fact it is two nature reserves side by side with different names and 
> ownership. One is charity-owned and managed by the county Wildlife Trust, the 
> other is owned and managed by the local District Council.
> 
> On the ground the boundary between them is barely visible, just odd bits of 
> old fencing in places, and footpaths criss-cross between them. The visitor 
> material tends to combine them as a single nature reserve, and that is how 
> most folks think of them:
> 
> http://www.worcswildlifetrust.co.uk/reserves/the-devils-spittleful-rifle-range-and-blackstone-farm-fields
> 
> The council's web site refers to them linking "seamlessly":
> 
> https://www.wyreforestdc.gov.uk/things-to-see-do-and-visit/countryside-and-nature/nature-reserves/rifle-range-sssi.aspx
> 
> But on the OSM standard map, the common boundary is shown as a bold green 
> line, which bears no relation to anything on the ground and could be 
> misleading for visitors.
> 
> Here's a picture of the boundary, running approx from 8 o'clock to 2 o'clock:
> 
> http://85a.uk/rifle_range_boundary_960x448.jpg
> 
> Is there a better way to map this? If I combine them as a single nature 
> reserve, is there a way to name the two parts of it separately? Is there a 
> way to show the common boundary less prominently?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Martin.
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves

[Martin Wynne]

At this location there is a large area of open sandy heath, forming a 
nature reserve:


 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.3716/-2.2816

In fact it is two nature reserves side by side with different names and 
ownership. One is charity-owned and managed by the county Wildlife 
Trust, the other is owned and managed by the local District Council.


On the ground the boundary between them is barely visible, just odd bits 
of old fencing in places, and footpaths criss-cross between them. The 
visitor material tends to combine them as a single nature reserve, and 
that is how most folks think of them:



http://www.worcswildlifetrust.co.uk/reserves/the-devils-spittleful-rifle-range-and-blackstone-farm-fields

The council's web site refers to them linking "seamlessly":


https://www.wyreforestdc.gov.uk/things-to-see-do-and-visit/countryside-and-nature/nature-reserves/rifle-range-sssi.aspx

But on the OSM standard map, the common boundary is shown as a bold 
green line, which bears no relation to anything on the ground and could 
be misleading for visitors.


Here's a picture of the boundary, running approx from 8 o'clock to 2 
o'clock:


 http://85a.uk/rifle_range_boundary_960x448.jpg

Is there a better way to map this? If I combine them as a single nature 
reserve, is there a way to name the two parts of it separately? Is there 
a way to show the common boundary less prominently?


Thanks,

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Preston Park, Brighton

[Jez Nicholson]

Thanks all for the suggestions. I have implemented most of them and will
continue. Haven't quite detached the park from the bounding roads yet.

Dave F mentioned the footpath to the playground
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/111548429  I had added this so that the
playground gate didn't appear in the service road
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8131255 ...is there a better way to do
this?

The pond in the Rose Garden is circular
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/682945162 with a path around the outside
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/484358840 and a central island reached by
3 sets of wide stepping stones https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/682945164 +
2 more. The gaps between the stones are narrower than the steps themselves.
At the moment they look like they are floatingany tips?

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 12:46 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 04/06/19 20:13, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> > I have to admit that Preston Park is my personal micromapping
> > playground. I walk the hound there nearly every day and I can capture
> > excruciating detail (so shoot me!).
> >
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1800140#map=18/50.83914/-0.14432=N
> >
> >
> > Any suggestions?
> >
> >
> > Some of the fields are edged with small wooden posts to prevent
> > driving onto the grass. Is this a 'fence'? if so, what is its type?
> >
>
> I'd do them as a
> barrier=bollards
> material=wood
> bollard=fixed
> foot=yes
> motorvehicle=no
> And so on with as much detail as you want...
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] max_age=toddler? | Re: Playground age limits

[Michael Collinson]

My thoughts also.

The description tag is very underused , IMHO. Specialist tags are 
undoubtedly extremely useful, they are precise, (should be) unambiguous 
and machine-read-friendly, but they do need to gain traction to be 
useful and are unfriendly when trying to convey fuzzy information, as 
seems to be the case here. And of course both can be used together when 
doing something new.


Mike

On 2019-06-05 01:35, Warin wrote:
Rather than enter text into a value where a number is expected .. why 
not use the description tag?

Description=For supervised younger children.
Description=For unsupervised older children.

??

On 05/06/19 03:51, SK53 wrote:
It might be germane to this discussion to consider minheight & 
maxheight as possible values. Certainly in ski resorts it is not 
uncommon to see minimum heights for certain chair lifts (typically 
1.25m) and I think I've seen similar on amusement park rides. Height 
is more likely to be a determining factor, even if not explicitly signed.


Jerry

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 18:34, Philip Barnes > wrote:


On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 16:49 +0100, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > What about `max_age=toddler`? (i.e. the oldest you can be is "a
> > toddler"), likewise `min_age=young_child` for the "older"
one? (Is
> > that
> > the best term?) Yes it's not a numeric age, but it's better than
> > nothing?
>
> Thanks Rory.
>
> I wondered about that. If a tag expects a numeric value, is it
ok to
> enter text?
>
> Or should I invent a new tag, such as maybe age_range=toddler?
>
> Is "toddler" too UK-specific? Does everyone understand it to mean
> the
> same thing? Is "infant" younger or older than "toddler"?
>
> For the older children, I wondered about "school-age", although of
> course there are also infant schools for toddlers.
>
The playgrounds around here have a specific age on the signs, can't
remember off the top of my head what it is, but it is a lot older
than
toddlers. If it stops raining I will go and have a look at the local
one. It will be something between 8 and 12.

The other area has no age limits and it would be wrong for us to
assume
one, each child is different and they will work out for
themselves (or
with parental guidance) when they are ready. There will certainly
be a
huge crossover.

Phil (trigpoint)





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb