> > In some cases they are so large that they're used to help orientate > yourself on a map. With out them the map looks less map like.
Correct, Washington State looks naked as low zoom levels without its corresponding parks and national forests. I think that national parks are a feature with particular implications to larger and/or newer countries--as far as rendering--(US, Canada, Russia, China, Australia, India, Brasil, etc.) which aren't particularly well represented in Europe? (that is a genuine question, I don't know the answer to). Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada at 45,000 km^2 and Wrangell-St. Elias National Park in the US at 53,000 km^2 are larger than a half dozen or so US states and quite a few countries (both parks I would also classify as bigfoot habitat) I've pointed out this infographic before http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/291-federal-lands-in-the-us/ but.. a lot of land in the US is federal land, and much of that is National Parks and Forests. I don't feel like a boundary rendering is sufficient (a boundary tagging may very well be) USGS convention has historically been to render them as shades of green depending on scale. -Tyler
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
