Re: [Talk-us] Strategy for Naming Parts of a Large Park

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

Kevin:

We can put park data as a name= tag into a node and see it render.  Sometimes 
that is a good placeholder, good enough.  Where Elliott and I seem to agree is 
that we put units of parks into a similarly-named park super-relation.  (I 
hyphenate that, Elliott seems not to, OK).  The elements of that super-relation 
can be polygons and/or multi polygons.  Just as you might add additional (note 
or even note_2) tags to a node.  It’s just set theory:  nodes, ways, closed 
ways (polygons) relations of type multi polygon and relations of relations 
(super-relations).  We get it, it’s a plastic way of grouping.  As we put ideas 
together as the best placeholders as we can, we’re doing fine.  Following our 
wiki pages as they get us to follow along with the bouncing ball:  hey, that’s 
priceless.  We take it as we get it!

I so love the spirit of “do our best at all costs” in this project, I truly do.

(Must we rewrite some wikis on how to grok super-relations?  It is a “not 
everybody does, but everybody can” topic.  If Kevin is befuddled maybe we 
should).

It seems OSM encompasses a large family of how parks might be displayed:  as 
nodes, as relations of multi polygon, as super relations and so on.

Actually, this is fundamental to OSM:  how renderers and/or data consumers pay 
attention to super-relations.  Some respect them, some don’t.

SteveA
California
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Strategy for Naming Parts of a Large Park

[stevea]

 The
individual areas are generally nodes tagged leisure=park with names like
"Patapsco Valley State Park - McKeldin Area".  The whole park-in-a-park
thing feels a little off to me, but it does get the names rendered on the
default map.  :-/


This sounds similar to what in our California State Parks system are 
known as "units."  These are discontiguous (don't touch each others' 
borders) park areas represented in OSM as either polygon or 
multipolygon, but are named similarly.  For example, "Henry Cowell 
Redwoods State Park" and "Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park (Fall 
Creek Unit)."  I agree, this doesn't seem ideal, and perhaps a 
super-relation to tie them all together would be yet more accurate, 
but this naming convention both seems correct and "gets the job done" 
(e.g. causes a pleasing rendering that conveys the correct names).


SteveA
California

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

Re: [Talk-us] Strategy for Naming Parts of a Large Park

[Phil! Gold]

* Elliott Plack  [2016-03-01 14:49 +]:
> [Patapsco Valley State Park] consists of several nine or so areas (2)
> spread out over 30 miles of the Patapsco River valley. Some of the parts
> are contiguous, others not.

The sub-areas also do not have (or do not always have) well-defined
boundaries.  The park itself is well-defined (and already has a
multipolygon border), but most of the sub-areas would either be nodes or
areas whose edges aren't really authoritative.

At the moment, there's a single multipolygon for the entire state park,
tagged leisure=park and boundary=protected_area, protect_class=5.  The
individual areas are generally nodes tagged leisure=park with names like
"Patapsco Valley State Park - McKeldin Area".  The whole park-in-a-park
thing feels a little off to me, but it does get the names rendered on the
default map.  :-/

(Elliott knows all this, but I thought it might be useful information for
the discussion.)

-- 
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
Join the non sequitur society. We may not make sense but we do like pizza.
 --- --

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

[Talk-us] Strategy for Naming Parts of a Large Park

[Elliott Plack]

The Patapsco Valley State Park (PVSP) (1) is a major state park in the
Baltimore area that Baltimore mappers (myself included) spent a lot of time
mapping. One issue I have with the current multipolygon is how to better
show map users the officially "named" areas.

PVSP consists of several nine or so areas (2) spread out over 30 miles of
the Patapsco River valley. Some of the parts are contiguous, others not.

What is a proper *strategy for adding these named parts to the map* such
that the relation remains? Perhaps a super-relation for the whole park,
with each smaller part as a sub relation/way?

Ultimately I'd like to see the areas rendered on the popular renderers,
since locals refer to the areas by their area name.

Best,

Elliott

(1) =
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2999749#map=11/39.2413/-76.8480=C
(2) =
http://dnr2.maryland.gov/publiclands/Documents/patapsco_overviewmap.pdf
-- 
Elliott Plack
http://elliottplack.me
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us