Kevin Kenny <[email protected]> writes: > The smaller state parks - the thousand-acre type that you contemplate > - are often not what IUCN considers to be protected areas, and so I've > taken to using protected_area tagging, but with protection classes > such as 21 (which woud be accompanied with > 'protection_object=recreation'). That doesn't render, so as a > stopgap, I've been tagging them 'leisure=nature_reserve' or > 'leisure=park', whichever seems to fit, recognizing that further > developments are likely eventually to make the dual tagging > unneccessary. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6442393 is > typical.
I completely fail to understand why IUCN protection status has become the main thing. Whether something is functioning as a park now seems to me to have nothing to do with long-term legal protection. I am not objecting to tagging the legal status. I just don't see how denoting legal status somehow removes the need to describe what is. > What I struggle with is are more complex situations - that may always > necessitate some 'abuse' of tagging. The thousand-acre park with a > forty-acre developed section is handled quite nicely with your scheme. > When you have a 'park' comprising hundreds of thousands, or millions > of acres, operated in public-private partnership, things start to > break down. This is true of New York's two huge parks; of the USA's > larger National Parks; and of US National Monuments, National Forests, > and BLM recreation lands. The outer ring - the legally designated area > - may not really enclose anything recognizable as a 'park', while the > stricter 'park' land management may be somewhat diffuse, in many > discrete protected areas. The larger area is also protected, but > limited sustainable development is often permitted. Agreed this is messy. I meant merely to broach the notion of tagging usage in sub-parts separately from tagging the name of the entity on the large object. > Looking at the IUCN definitions, the only class that fits these large > parks is '2' - 'national park'. IUCN, like our Wiki, doesn't actually > require that 'national park' be constituted by a national government. > It simply embodies a hidden assumption that only a nation-state has > the resources to constitute one. leaving the bigger state-defined > facilities in terminologic limbo. I would ask if it's really a good thing that OSM has adopted IUCN as the basis for what is and is not a park. It seems to me that it's causing trouble. > Another odd case that I've mapped a lot of are the undeveloped > recreation areas owned by New York City to protect its water supply. > The city bought them to protect them from development, and allows > public access (in some cases requiring that the user apply for a free > permit, in others, "come one, come all!") I've tagged these with > boundary=protected_area protect_class=12 protection_object=water, and > then added leisure=nature_reserve as a rendering stopgap (because > class 12 doesn't render either). We used to have "landuse=reservoir_protection" (although maybe these places are watershed protection, not reservoir). Part of what I object to about the IUCN hegemony is the view that everything should be turned into some complicated protect_class and other tagging removed. But, in this case, your approach seems reasonable in terms of denoting the landuse. I would argue that if people are welcome, then in addition to whatever protection tags, it deserves "leisure=nature_reserve" *also*. There is no reason to conclude from "water protection" that humans are or are not allowed. Near me, there is reservoir protection land, and it has "no trespassing - public water supply" signs. I think the protection tagging ought to match your case (but maybe protection_object=reservoir instead of =water), but also access=no and definitely no nature_reserve. (I agree with your notion that free permit means access=yes to first order.) > One reason that I disfavour 'leisure=park' is, simply, the renderer. > (I know, don't tag for the renderer!) The objects that render with > borders (nature_reserve, national_park, protected_area for classes > 1-6) don't obscure landcover, so those who wish to map landcover in > these large areas can do so without collision. The only place where > I've really tried to do that has been Bear Mountain - where I was > producing a detailed map for a group outing a couple of years ago. I > didn't push beyond the specific area that I needed. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6467468 There is a much larger issue in the standard style between landuse and landcover, and not having an integrated vision for which is rendered how, to avoid colliding. Around me, golf courses have a color fill and nature_reserve doesn't, and that has always seemed broken. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
