> In; F1 there are the words "general landuse polygons" > > F2 there are the words "residential, commercial, industrial zones" that > clearly imply land use. > > So your discussion is clearly about land use? Fine - that is ok.
No. It is about virtual layers, calculated from OSM data for cartographic, statistical or maybe some other use cases. > I have an area that is used for recreation - picnics, walks, etc. It is a > designated "National Park". > So human land use is 'recreation'. There are native animals in there .. but > the plan of management is primarily for 'recreation' and has been for many > decades. My understanding is that all parks (national/regional and local ones) are on a "higher" level "different GIS layer". That is on the ground you still have a forest, water, meadow, rock, whatever. And then on TOP of that you have an area of a "park". If you're interested in parks - you render them on top of forest, meadow etc. objects. But if you're not interested in parks you skip park objects and should still get a good result with forests, meadows etc. Also if you're calculating how much forests there is in a region, you want forests. It is not important if that forest is IN the park, or not. You can simply ignore park objects. Or in other words, park is something I must KNOW. It is not something I can see from say the airplane. -- Tomas _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
