Re: [Tagging] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

W dniu 03.12.2017 o 10:04, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze: I’m against both proposals (for the current situation, but with more changes to the whole system it might change), for 1 it was demonstrated that there are cases of nature reserves which aren’t protected areas according to osm tag

Re: [Tagging] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

sent from a phone > On 3. Dec 2017, at 05:00, Daniel Koć wrote: > > 1. Discourage leisure=nature_reserve and make it a subtag of > boundary=protected_area (if needed, otherwise just use a protect_class=7 or > other class if known), like: > > - nature_reserve=yes - 2 uses >

[Tagging] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

I wrote the summary of the thread I started on Talk list regarding protected areas and nature reserves: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kocio/diary/42861 It's sometimes hard to tell which list is proper, because both tagging and rendering are discussed, so I guess such summary might be