I definitely think it's a matter of permission and opening hours, the polygon
where this permission apply is secondary, could it be an admin boundary or
reserve of some kind.
Let the case where no boundary exists yet in OSM, then map it.
Yves
Le 21 octobre 2016 15:45:26 GMT+02:00, Kevin Kenny
<kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> That's rather a simplistic view. Hunting reserves exist to protect the
>land from development so that there will be places where it is possible
>to
>hunt and game available to harvest. The important distinction isn't the
>one
>between 'hunting reserve' and 'wilderness'; it's the one between
>'reserve
>land' and 'suburbia.'
>
>In most of the conservation lands in my part of the world, hunting is
>permitted, even encouraged, because it is necessary to thin the herds.
>Since humanity drove the wolf and cougar into extinction in my part of
>the
>world a century and a half ago (and so far will not allow the wolf to
>be
>reintroduced, even in strictly protected wilderness), hunting is
>necessary
>to avoid ecological collapse from overpopulation of the larger game
>species, notably the white-tailed deer, the black bear, and local
>nonmigratory populations of geese. Most of the hunters that I know
>understand very well the value of conservation, and few would say that
>hunting reserves exist for the primary purpose of supporting hunting.
>
>The state not only owns lands for this purpose, but also encourages
>this
>style of management on the part of private landowners. My brother gets
>substantial tax breaks on the farm he owns because my family has
>allowed it
>to return to woodland. (It hasn't been farmed since the Dust Bowl
>years.)
>In return, he's required both to refrain from farming it and to refrain
>from subdividing or developing. He is permitted the occasional timber
>harvest (the plan for which must be approved by a forester) and to use
>the
>land for hunting (he's not much of a hunter, but leases the hunting
>rights
>to a club), fishing, and recreation (a snowmobile/ATV trail crosses his
>acreage). Given that the state is compensating him to conserve his land
>and
>practice sustainable forestry, how is his private preserve not
>conservation
>land? Does the fact that people pay the club to hunt on the club's
>leaseholds (an area much larger than my brother's farm) change the
>nature
>of my brother's conservation easement?
>
>His deal with the government is typical. A lot of people get something
>out
>of it. New York City gets better water quality in the Watsonville
>reservoir. A few hunters, fishermen, and snowmobilists get a place to
>recreate. The National Park Service gets protection of the Delaware
>River
>viewshed. The poor soil that remains is stabilized against further
>erosion
>and gradually rebuilt by the natural processes that have been going on
>since it was denuded in the last ice age. Brook trout and shad find a
>place
>to spawn. Several threatened bird species have been sighted on his
>property. Most important to him, he can afford the taxes to continue
>living
>in the place. Without the conservation easement, he'd have been forced
>to
>sell to a developer and move back to the city years ago.
>
>Nature reserves are managed for many purposes, and enjoy greater and
>lesser
>levels of protection. New York is fortunate enough to have them in
>abundance. Some are enormous and strictly protected (e.g., High Peaks
>Wilderness). Some are tiny (as small as a few city blocks of wetland in
>New
>York City). Some belong to Federal, State and local governments. Some
>are
>in private hands - the International Paper tract in Arietta township is
>the
>largest. (It allows public access for recreation anywhere that active
>logging is not taking place, and it takes a forester's eye to
>distinguish
>it from the adjacent Jessup River Wild Forest.) Some belong to
>conservancies (and for complicated legal reasons, sometimes it is
>convenient for New York to pay conservancies to acquire and manage
>land).
>Some allow only the most passive of activities (access by foot, ski,
>and
>canoe, in terrain that only fit and experienced outdoor recreationists
>will
>tackle). Some restrict only development and allow motorized recreation,
>timber harvest, and low-density habitation.
>
>All are popularly known as 'nature reserves' of one sort or another. I
>daresay that around here, few people can make the distinction, for
>instance, between Wilderness Area, Wild Forest, State Forest, State
>Wildlife Management Area, and even State Park. To the tourist, they
>look
>identical - they all have the same style of brown-and-gold signs, they
>are
>all open to the public, they are all mostly forested (because that's
>the
>natural state of most land in the local ecosystem), they all belong to
>the
>state and are policed by the rangers, .... The fact that they are
>managed
>for different primary objectives and fall under different regulatory
>schemes is secondary - most people deal with the regulation by
>following
>what the signage proclaims. (State Wildlife Management Area, by the
>way, is
>a newer title for what used to be called State Game Reserves. They are
>very
>much hunting preserves.)
>
>I see 'leisure=nature_reserve" as an interim measure to get something
>on
>the map when its full legalities are not understood, and I also
>continue to
>tag it because otherwise a great many of our public recreation areas
>would
>not appear on the rendered map at all. It's not so much 'tagging for
>the
>renderer' as it is adapting to an imprecise data model while the world
>catches up to the more specific one (boundary=protected_area). Since I
>ALSO
>tag with boundary=protected_area (and at least protect_class and
>protection_object), I'm supporting the more precise data model as well.
>At
>such time as protected_area is adequately supported in the rest of the
>toolchain, I can remove the nature_reserve tag from areas that are
>considered inappropriate for it by a simple mechanical edit based on
>protect_class.
>
>If, as you say, this is 'wrong,' then offer a concrete proposal for
>what is
>right - and a concrete plan for making it actually usable.
>
>I'm not satisfied with the answer that I must wait for the renderer to
>catch up. If US mappers had not resorted to nature_reserve tagging for
>such
>entities as US National Forests (even more obviously not 'nature
>reserve's
>by your definition) they would not appear on the map. That situation
>has
>been at an impasse for at least a couple of years. It's in with a large
>bucket of rendering change requests that are deferred because they
>'need
>hstore.' And 'hstore' itself is being intentionally delayed (so one of
>the
>maintainers casually remarked to me) precisely so that the people who
>maintain the renderer will not be deluged with nuisance change
>requests.
>Hearing that dispelled my last sense of guilt at 'tagging for the
>renderer'
>in cases where there is no formally correct tagging that renders.
>
>I'd rather use tags _sensu lato_ and see my work on the map than have
>the
>Adirondack Park disappear from the map because it is not a 'national
>park'
>_sensu stricto._ And in every case where I have 'tagged for the
>renderer',
>I have additional tagging that would enable the finer distinction to be
>made moving forward. I render my own maps for the places that matter
>most
>to me, but I'm not tooled up to offer them to the whole world. That's
>really the best I have to offer.
>
>Nobody's reverted it yet. For all that people on this list tell me that
>I'm
>'wrong,' nobody seems to have a better idea.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
--
Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
