On 24 Mar 2010, at 18:47 , Tyler Ritchie wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Sven Lafebre <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been looking at state parks, state forests and state game lands > in Pennsylvania. I think Adam Killian uploaded most of these a year or > two ago—I don't know if he's on this mailing list. > > Most of these parks are tagged as physical areas. For example, state > game lands are natural=wood and leisure=nature_reserve. Unfortunately, > these tags don't always correspond to the actual land use. Moreover, > they are really administrative entities, not physical ones. So I would > like to change them to something similar to the scheme used for parks > e.g. in the Bay Area: > > boundary=national_park > admin_level=4 > park:type=state_game_land > > The underlying physical land use can then be mapped orthogonally to > this. > > Are there any objections to this? Am I forgetting anything? Please let > me know! > > I'd probably toss in some ownership tag as well.
definitely if it makes sense, in this case state_game_land is a clear sign for the ownership in some areas parks or openspace is privately owned and such info is valuable > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
