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

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

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

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

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

* 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

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

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