Hi All,
I think the whole area classifies as a park
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Green). Further I don't follow the
argument of creating new tag keys. Without some form of discussion we risk
ending up with many different ways of doing the same thing (not good for
data consumers).
I'm not intending to twist an existing tag (some of which are highly
debated anyway - eg landuse and landcover), just trying to identify which
if any are of use for these cases. Okay which is preferred out of:
* designation = millennium_green (or doorstep_green, crow_open_access, etc)
* boundary = millenium_green
My vote goes on the first as it matches how designation is already used in
practice, and boundary seems a little redundant on a closed way (as does
area=yes on things other than highways or waterways etc.)
Rob
On , Brian Quinion <[email protected]> wrote:
>> are clearly gardens, some parks, some nature reserves. Please do not
>> retag these features to some perceived standard. I would also avoid
>> overloading the designation key - better to have an explicit key than
>> to reuse and existing key.
>>
>> About the only thing these area have in common is that they were all
>> funded as part of the same project, if you want capture this
>> information I would suggest something like:
>>
>> millennium_green=yes
>>
>> or how about:
>>
>> funding_source=Millennium Green
>>
>> --
>> Brian
>
> Yeah you're entirely right that the land cover can be different. They
have
> to include "significant natural area". The one closest to me is a mix of
> grassy areas and woodland. Oddly it misses one part of grassy area.
There is
> a local nature reserve that includes all the grassed area but not the
wood!!
> It would make sense to me to tag the whole area as leisure=park and
then to
> tag the Millennium Green and Local Nature Reserve as 2 separate closed
ways.
The whole area isn'ta park so don't tag it as such. It is an area
covered by a funding program / financial trust.
> Perhaps the landuse tag can be used. The main issue here is that the
area is
Please do not reuse existing tags (designation, landuse, whatever) to
mean something new. Create a new tag that is explicit. Reusing an
existing tag causes huge problems for data users. It isn'ta type of
landuse - which describes the physical usage of the land.
> On second thoughts, there is a boundary proposal that could work well:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reserve#Examples
>
> Looks like the boundary tag is already used:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dnational_park
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area
>
> Looking at the page on boundary=protected_area, perhaps class 7 is the
right
> one for Millennium Greens?
As Ed has said this probably isn't appropriate although it would seem
closer. How about boundary=millennium_green ?
Please - use a new tag. Don't try to twist an existing tag. Adding a
new tag is not a bad thing - create it and document what you have done
to the wiki.
--
Brian
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
