Agreed! I think we should do a super relation too, also because with all of the parts spread over a large linear area, the label only appears in the middle, and thus is often not shown in the popular southern area.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:40 PM stevea <[email protected]> wrote: > > The > >individual areas are generally nodes tagged leisure=park with names like > >"Patapsco Valley State Park - McKeldin Area". The whole park-in-a-park > >thing feels a little off to me, but it does get the names rendered on the > >default map. :-/ > > This sounds similar to what in our California State Parks system are > known as "units." These are discontiguous (don't touch each others' > borders) park areas represented in OSM as either polygon or > multipolygon, but are named similarly. For example, "Henry Cowell > Redwoods State Park" and "Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park (Fall > Creek Unit)." I agree, this doesn't seem ideal, and perhaps a > super-relation to tie them all together would be yet more accurate, > but this naming convention both seems correct and "gets the job done" > (e.g. causes a pleasing rendering that conveys the correct names). > > SteveA > California > -- Elliott Plack http://elliottplack.me
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
