On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 15:42, Kevin Kenny <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I dislike the numeric classification as well. > That's good. We agree on something. :) I dislike 'leisure=state_park' for two reasons. > > First, it preëmpts the 'leisure' tag. It turns out that there are > State Parks that are also something else in the 'leisure=*' space. A > handful in New York are tagged 'leisure=golf_course' and should retain > that tagging, but it would be good to have tagging that indicates the > protection status. Looks like we also agree there. I have no problem with something tagged as leisure=golf_course also having a protection status. It's analagous to a highway of a particular type having an access tag. Where I disagree is with the people who think that leisure=golf_course should, where it is protected, be replace by protected_class=n. Second, it pushes the problem down one level. Near me, there are > 'County Parks' that are functionally pretty much the same as State > Parks, and even 'County Forests', 'County Nature Preserves', 'County > Wildlife Sanctuaries', and so on... and moreover, even some similar > objects at the town level. What is significant is the protection, not > the level of government that establishes it, so having 'state' in the > name is simply a recipe for more confusion. Ummmmm, what do you mean by "having state in the name"? If you mean the tag name, I agree. State parks and county parks are still parks. To some degree the operator tag is adequate to distinguish them. But having "State" or "County" in name=* is perfectly fine. The 'boundary=recreational_area' idea would work for me if people were > actually to get behind it. Something along those lines might work. In the UK boundary is how we handle national parks that encompass a lot of things (such as towns) your country might not consider to be a park: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/165598 - it's not all "nature" or "recreation" but there are extra legal restrictions on activities such as building a housing estate that don't apply outside of the park. > In fact, that would work with the IUCN codes as well - we don't have > to use them unchanged, we can name them! Not only could but should. There is a computer programming language I hold in contempt but I grudgingly admit that its introduction of enumerated types was a good idea. We should avoid magic numbers. > > I drafted the protected_area idea a short while before I learnt of the > issue with the database, and learning of the issue has already made me > less sanguine. Yeah, that kyboshes a lot of ideas. It also requires that editors know to treat it as an area object (but that's a lot less hassle to fix). > The only thing that kept the idea alive for me was > that 'area=yes' is available as a workaround, Indeed. One might consider that tagging for the renderer, but I'd say that using a valid tag in a valid way isn't wrong, it's lying for the renderer that is wrong. At worst, adding area=yes is superfluous if everything (renderers, editors, etc.) already treat that object as an area. > So, I'd like to emphasize: > > * The tagging should address protection status and purpose, not what > level of government (or private agency, or indigenous community) > manages it. > Seems reasonable. Another tag could be introduced if it were ever necessary to state the level of organization that manages it. * The purpose should be of a sufficiently general nature (e.g. > 'recreation') that a typical state park can be preserved as a single > named entity. > Ummm, see Pembrokeshire Coast National Park I gave a link for above. It has towns and cities in it. I doubt you could generalize that sufficiently well. * If the new tag requires a database reload to become a polygon, > then it should not conflict with the existing tagging on typical state > parks. If the scheme punishes mappers by failing to render correctly > tagged features while rendering incorrectly tagged ones, it will not > take off. > Not really controversial. If it breaks things, it won't be used. The reason for the third bullet is that I understand that a database > reload incurs a massive disruption to operations and can be done only > for extraordinary reasons. Yeah, that's a problem. But that's what area=yes is for. It may not be what it was intended to be for, some might consider it a misuse or abuse of tagging, but it works like a duck. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
