As Jim points out this is a 'hairy' issue (having had some experience with it when working in the Victoria state government). The name is not sufficient to distinguish the different categories of parks/reserves etc.
John is right about the distinction between the "landuse" & "natural" tags. "landuse" is about what is on the ground (trees, farming etc). I am assuming national/state/other parks/areas should be attributed with the "natural" tag, but "natural=what"? A standard for a "jurisdiction" tag is one element. I think we also need to add a "type" tag ie type=National Park. Will take a look on data.australia.gov.au and see if I can find the classification and then post it on the wiki. cheers 2010/1/4 John Smith <[email protected]> > 2010/1/4 Jim Croft <[email protected]>: > > yep - and my point was that although many parks are called national, > > the aren't. Royal, Namadgi, etc. > > > > In the mix we also have, wilderness areas, reserves, natural heritage > > arras and nature reserves of various descriptions. > > > > I think there might be an international classification/ontology of > > protected areas. Will have a look for it... > > There is, was posted to this list just after data.australia.gov.au > went online with the national parks etc data... >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
