Martijn & all, I rather like the samples you gave: boundary=national_historic_site boundary=national_historic_park etc. They are simple, straightforward, and unambiguous. (The pattern could also be extended to other boundary types.)
-- SEJ -- twitter: @geomantic -- skype: sejohnson8 "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." -- Einstein On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Martijn van Exel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Greg Troxel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > a search for 'Golden Spike' yields nada. I was about to draw a > > boundary=national_park[3] around it with a name tag, so it would be a > > little easier to find. But it turns out the NPS has a boundary > > shapefile for all National Parks, Historic Sites, Rivers, Parkways, > > Lakeshores and more than a dozen other categories[4]. > > > > I wouldn't object to importing park boundaries. > > > > But, I find boundary=national_park odd, relative to the rest of > > boundary=*. For truly large parks, it makes some sense. > > A related issue is tagging the polygon rather than the boundary, and the > > landuse=conservation/leisure=recreatation_ground tagging (not really > > right for parks, but actually the combination describes the NPS > > mission). > > > > So I have a mild preference (not backed up by volunteering) to make the > > park boundary/polygon tagging a bit more baked before importing. > > > > Boundary is used on ways and relations (and even on nodes..). I don't > have a problem with using boundary ways if the boundaries are a set of > disjoint, simple polygons like in this case. It's a shame that they > are not rendered in default mapnik but that argument can't prevail > over logical classification arguments. > > Maybe we should just introduce a new set of boundary= tags for the > various NPS domains: > > boundary=national_historic_site > boundary=national_historic_park > boundary=national_forest[1] > .... > > There are 37 classes in total, most of them with only a few instances. > > What do y'all think of that idea? > > [1] Already in use, oddly 182 out of 183 uses are nodes, seems like an > unfinished or ill-advised edit session: > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/boundary=national_forest#overview > > -- > martijn van exel > http://oegeo.wordpress.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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
