The way I see it is that a state park ought to be tagged as a plain-old park, not a national park. The national park tag is for national parks. Pretty self-explanatory.
-Compdude -----Original Message----- From: AJ Ashton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Talk-us] Duplicate state parks in California I've seen state parks in California that are in the database twice each with slightly different tags. Here is an example changeset that added two of everything: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2020128 Two relations containing the same way(s): one relation is 'type=boundary, boundary=national_park' and the other is 'type=multipolygon, leisure=park'. Are both of these really necessary? To me it seems a bit redundant, especially when multiple relations are involved. (Among other things it causes multiple results for the same entity in Nominatum.) This data is the result of an import[1] some years ago, but don't see any detailed info on the tagging approach that was taken. Does anyone have more info on this, or on tagging state parks in general? (There is also the confusion of state/regional parks being tagged as 'national' parks, but I take it that's just how things are done.) [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/Import -- AJ Ashton _______________________________________________ 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
