In the wiki entry for "Key:leisure", the main statement is that the leisure tag is for places people go in their spare time. That is why I had thought that it was not an appropriate tag to use for places where people cannot usually go.
However, if there is general agreement that this is an appropriate tag to be added to nature protected areas, then I would be happy to use it that way. On Thu, Dec 7, 2017, at 12:29 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote: > > > On 07/12/17 10:54, cleary wrote: > > Protected areas will be rendered on the map if the tag > > "leisure=nature_reserve" is added. However not all nature protected > > areas are open for leisure purposes (depending on one's definition of > > "leisure"). Access may sometimes be restricted to research or > > educational purposes or similar. It seems preferable that such areas be > > tagged as "national_park" accompanied with an "access=restricted" or > > similar tag. > > I don't understand why you think tagging something leisure indicates the > access characteristics. Tagging leisure=nature_reserve no more indicates > public access than leisure=marina, leisure=swimming_pool, or > leisure=sauna. If you want to indicate access use the access tag. > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
