Martijn van Exel <[email protected]> writes: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Jeffrey Ollie <[email protected]> wrote: >> Perhaps add a "us:" prefix to the value? >> >> boundary=us:national_historic_site >> boundary=us:national_historic_park >> boundary=us:national_forest > > I like that idea, in spite of the boundary=national_park convention > already in place.
The question is about hierarchy and the requirements imposed on downstream data consumers. Starting as above, we will have hundreds of boundary tags. And, this is a departure from landuse/leisure/natural which is functional tagging rather than named tagging. I would suggest thinking through how these tags are to be used by renderers and mkgmap (and other transformation tools), and how those transforms will be maintained as new tag values are added. An alternative would be to define park public_forest tags for boundary, and subtag for types. That way processing tools that don't grok the subtags can still do something reasonable.
pgpczZqpRUhlQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
