Thanks for those details, Kevin. The comparison is very helpful. The GMNF seems to have only 3 classifications that I've been able to find:
- Wilderness -- which should probably be protected_class=1b - National Recreation Area -- protected_class=5 (Wikipedia page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moosalamoo_National_Recreation_Area> notes the ICUN class) - everything else -- probably protected_class=6 Thanks again for the feedback! On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Kevin Kenny <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Adam Franco <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks for another fabulously detailed reply Kevin! >> >> So it sounds like I'm on the right track then and it makes sense to leave >> the broad outer boundaries as *boundary=national_park* and use the >> *boundary=protected_area >> + leisure=nature_reserve* combo for the smaller US Forest Service-owned >> parcels. >> > > That's what I did when I reimported the Adirondack and Catskill data. > There wasn't a clear consensus that the tagging was 'right' - but nobody > really complained after the job was done. > > The tagging that I used is described in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/ > wiki/NYS_DEC_Lands > In the Catskills, there was a second category of public land: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import:_NYCDEP_Watershed_ > Recreation_Areas > > I believe that it will be important, if anyone does get around to using > the protected_area tagging, that protect_class and protection_object be > something reasonable; that's something that's likely to affect the > rendering. I'm not all that familiar with GMNF, so I don't know if there > are a range of protection classes in it the way there are in the New York > forests. >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
