Hi Mateusz, You are right that I raised the issue of the green fill for leisure=park because it is being used for large, wild protected lands, where it causes problems for "natural" and "landcover" tagging. If mappers only used it for smallish, low-protection, usually urban parks, as the wiki defines, it wouldn't be such a problem since these parks are usually mainly grass anyway, and no-one bothers to define them in detail with "natural=*" or "landcover=*".
So, yes, the problem arises in what I think is tagging for the renderer. And yes, that means it's really not the renderer's problem. Agreed.. On the other hand, one could argue that since the natural=*, landcover=* (and even landuse=*) tags exist, why should we be providing another, special way of fill-coloring parks (even small urban parks)? It would be more consistent to use the same set of landcover tags for ALL park-type and protected areas. And it's really no big inconvenience for mappers to add landuse=grass (or whatever) to their definition of a small urban park. (Incidentally, the other leisure=* areas that are provided with a fill-color (garden, playground, dog_park,..) are almost guaranteed to be small, and a single color fill is no problem) I'm not sure what you meant about the national_park borders... I'm sorry. Could you clarify? I stayed away from "boundary=national_park" and "leisure=nature_reserve" topic so as not to muddy the water in my original note. But I think it's true that there is also tagging for the renderer going on with these tags too - to force boundary rendering for "boundary=protected_area" which isn't there at present. Briefly, my personal preference (for what it's worth), assuming rendering is added at some point for "boundary=protected_area", would be to drop rendering for "boundary=national_park" and "leisure=nature_reserve" as well (as I'm suggesting for "leisure=park"). The "boundary=national_park" tag is redundant, given "boundary=protected_area and protect_class=2 and protection_title=national_park". IMHO, it could be deprecated. I don't have an opinion on "leisure=nature_reserve". Maybe there's some value to keeping it as part of the set of "leisure=*" values that describe facilities for human recreation, but it doesn't need to explicitly render. I should add that my comments are based only on experiences of my local neck of the woods (CA State, and maybe the west coast of the US). I know you have to consider requirements from all over.. Thanks for reading this far.. On 1/6/2018 7:58 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 21:11:04 +0000 > Doug Hembry <doughem...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> IMHO, AT THE VERY LEAST, the background green fill for leisure=park >> could and should be dropped by openstreeetmap-carto - it is >> unnecessary, causes problems, and can be replaced by natural=* or >> landcover=* . This would reduce one incentive for inappropriate use, >> and if still used inappropriately, it wouldn't matter so much. > I am not sure. As I understand, problem is caused by tagging for > renderer - but national park borders are already displayed in this > style. > . > _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
