On 04/04/2010 8:38 PM, Sam Vekemans wrote: > Hi Kevin, > As we were chatting earlier.. > (cc:talk-ca list) > > I just want to show you a sample. > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-123.8369687&minlat=48.7525877&maxlon=-123.7812077&maxlat=48.7667345&box=yes > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-123.8369687&minlat=48.7525877&maxlon=-123.7812077&maxlat=48.7667345&box=yes> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4329006 > > It appears that the National Protected area's file DOES contain > provincial park boundaries. > > I've converted & created 11 .osm files. and i think it's best to > just copy in 1 at a time, as there is no rush. > > This one is interesting because the Cowichan Vally Regional District > ALSO has the parks file (but i think it's just for regional parks) It has regional, municipal, and provincial parks, though it only has a few of the parks in the other municipalities and it only gives them names, It doesn't have a field to indicate which parks are at which level. And it doesn't include the portion of PRNP that overlaps the CVRD. And actually I was doing the integration for it while you uploaded that test. I'd already started uploading it when checked the map and saw the addition.
> Anyway... i was thinking creating a new tag > "boundary=provincial_park" kind of like how we have the proposal for > boundary=aborigional_lands. It bothers me a little as it's something of a Canadian specific term. I'd kind of prefer to see national_park replaced with a more generic term, and then use operator or admin_level. As it is I made the provincial parks in the CVRD data national_park with "operator=BC Parks". The rest are either leisure=park or leisure=nature_reserve (for "Nature Parks") with the the municipality they are in as the operator. -- Kevin Smith <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
