29 Apr 2019, 15:02 by [email protected]: > The other case is a large area with subareas that are each clearly one > or the other. Consider: > > 1000 acre parcel, almost entirely forest in a natural state, with dirt > hiking paths > > a 40 acre sub-piece of this on the edge, that is different: > - paved parking lot > - visitor center / bathroom building > - grass and a few trees (city park like) > - picnic tables, grills > > probably there are different rules for the two pieces. Dogs might be > allowed in the 40-acre chunk, but not in the larger forest, for > example. > > the entire thing is called "Foo State Park", owned by a state > government. Legally it is one parcel, and run by the same state > agency. > > I think the basic issue is that we tend to focus on the larger > definition of area and think we must give it one tag, so we frame the > question: "Is this 1000 acre place a =park or a =nature_reserve?". > Stepping back, I see a park and a nature_reserve as separate and related > things. > > So, I'd be in favor of having a way on the parcel boundary, and another > denoting the park-type sub-piece, calling those outer and inner and > tagging: > > outer: name="Foo State Park" > inner: leisure=park > relation wtih outer/inner: leisure=nature_reserve > > Or, perhaps not having a relation and putting leisure=nature_reserve on > the outer, with the expectation that renderers/etc. will resolve the > overapping landuse to the smaller geometry. > > (As I see it this applies to many National Parks too, but we don't worry > about that because we just call them national_park.) > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
