Apologies if I've already answered these. On Apr 24, 2019, at 4:34 PM, Greg Troxel <[email protected]> wrote: > I think Kevin has it right that we should tag primarily by something > about land use, not by owne/operator, although it's fine to tag > operator.
I 100% agree. Yet I peruse landuse key values (except park is noted leisure=park, which means I'm chasing my tail so I ignore it) and find that none of them come close to describing "park" (the American English sense). I myself have also used landuse=conservation (long ago) and/or leisure=nature_reserve (neither of which render, not really the point). > I think the entire "national_park" tag is unfortunate, as it wraps up a > lot of concepts that vary by country, and makes people understand things > when they don't. In the US, it should mean "preserve the land while > allowing access and enjoyment", there is a notion that the place is > relatively distinguished, and it doesn't really have a connotation of > size. Some say "size matters" with national_park, some say it's too confusing for size to matter. It doesn't seem we're going to eliminate boundary=national_park anytime soon, as even though this shouldn't have mattered, it did: this was a tag that rendered, so people used it. (How rendering — presently, eventually, politically-within-OSM... — gets coupled to tagging is another chewy topic). SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
