Martin, I agree with you. I like the idea of using natural=whatever for landcover and landuse=whatever for the landuse. While I'm not convinced national parks, national forest wilderness areas, federal/state/county/municipal wildlife reserves shouldn't be solid fill areas in renderers, I have no argument that boundary="reserve type" is inadequate. I do think that there should be a better way to tag nature reserves and allowed activities, to that end I'm currently looking into regulations in non-US countries with similarly regulated large areas (generic applicable tags seem appropriate).
I will, however, stand by my bigfoot_habitat=yes tag. -Tyler On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected] > wrote: > 2009/7/21 maning sambale <[email protected]>: > > Landuse and Landcover are two different things although in some cases > > interchangeable. > > it doesn't change my point: there can be different reserves / > protective areas at the same area (air, water, natural, ...), together > with different "OSM-defined" landuses like forest, basin, reservoir, > etc. > Using landuse=nature_reserve will unnecessarily complicate our lifes... > > cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
