At the rough level presented here, I think all of these could and
probably should be validly tagged as leisure=park, particularly if a
local mapper has tagged them as such. I don't think it makes sense to
limit the size, that seems to be micromanaging (no pun intended :)).
Sometimes people
All of these cases are somewhat deceptive and deserve more research. In
cases 1, 3, and 4 - these areas are slivers or discontinuous areas from
actual parks. Case 2 may also be a discontinuous area, but it's not as
obvious as the other areas. My suggestion would be to zoom out a little bit
and
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:04 PM Bill Ricker wrote:
> In many other matters we say we map the signage.
> That is not a bad place to start here.
> So a rule of it needs at least a name and/or a physical sign would be
> internally consistent and predictably OSMish.
> An exception to allow for
On 10/1/2019 10:26 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Case 1: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png
Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings.
Case 2: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case2.png
The tree-covered green area in the middle of the image
I certainly wouldn't tag
> Mapper 1: "This park doesn't exist." Mapper 2: "It is undeveloped land
> managed by County Parks in a sort of proto park state. How would YOU map
> this?"
>
I find that both mappers here make valid points.
Yes they do.
Generally, in times
> where every teenager maps their back porch as a
Hi,
the DWG has been called upon to mediate a conflict between mappers, and
one small part of this conflict is the question of "when is a park a park".
Some of you know the persons involved and some of you might *be* the
persons involved but I would like to discuss this not on a personal
level
6 matches
Mail list logo
