I do agree with Christoph here, tag depreciation should be discussed outside of the scope of osm-carto. Daniel, this all thread looks like you want to promote a tagging scheme for the primary reason you can't make it look nice on the slippy map. That's really not helping tagging discussions! You should restart this all thread on tagging@ without osm-carto in mind. Yves
Le 3 décembre 2017 04:05:52 GMT+01:00, "Daniel Koć" <[email protected]> a écrit : >Thanks for the comments! They help me to get the bigger picture, which >is not visible from just the tag names and definitions. > >TL;DR summary: I think that for now we should render all the existing >tags with osm-carto, but make some of them appear earlier to encourage >smooth migration to a more precise scheme. > >W dniu 01.12.2017 o 01:55, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze: > >> there is no problem with 2 different tags fitting for the same kind >of >> thing. These are also different in scope, leisure=nature_reserve is >> for all kind of natural protected areas, while >boundary=protected_area >> is for all kind of protected areas. > >My general findings are: > >1. As I currently understand it, nature reserve is _always_ a type of >protected area, to begin with. > >We were talking on osm-carto ticket with some people about private >reserves and even when someone told me "it's not about protection!" >this >term was used immediately in the same sentence (or in the next one). =} > >I guess they meant "it's voluntary and not formal", but still it's >intended as a protection of nature, so it's just a special, weak type >of >protection. > >2. The problem seems to be for a mapper to be more precise, since a >typical survey can reveal a sign with a name "XYZ nature reserve". >However this is not about just a name. > >Boundaries are not visible on the ground easily, so a mapper who draw >them have to use some other sources and I believe there are more >informations available. Otherwise the area shape is probably not >verifiable, which would be bad anyway. And I think all of them are >areas, not the points (node would mean probably "here is the protection > >area, but exact shape is not shown at the moment"), so boundary is also > >a sure thing. > >3. The name tag leisure=nature_reserve states that it's about leisure >(which of course might be for a given object), but it's always about >protection. So even if the value have merits, this key assumption is >wrong in general and misses more important property >(boundary=nature_reserve has only 35 uses). > >4. Another problem is lack of coherent definition of protection other >than numbers and high-level classes. > >The numbers seems to be derived from IUCN scheme ( >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUCN_protected_area_categories ), but >wider: only categories 1-6 is IUCN-based and I don't know about the >rest. > >Especially class 7 is interesting for us: "*nature-feature area*: >similar to 4. but /without/ IUCN-level.", so i guess it's for all the >non-IUCN classified nature reserves. Probably most of the time this >should be clear from the boundary shape source. > >It would be good to have more standardized subtags for common features: >- "nature" - protection_object=* is the same mess as numbers, when >talking about hierarchy levels, so maybe some subtag like >"nature_reserve=yes" would be useful >- "private" owner type (not the access type) - >governance_type=private_landowner would be great (if really used...) >- "voluntary" - but that might be clear from the lack of government or >international authorities influence > >What about the solutions? > >> My suggestion for osm carto is to look at both tagging schemes for >> nature reserves. I wouldn’t drop support for leisure =nature reserve > >In summary, we have 3 popular but overlapping types now: > >1. leisure=nature_reserve (77 264) >2. boundary=national_park (16 583) >3. boundary=protected_area (62 016) > >Their general properties and relations: > >1. has a wrong key, but nice value name, and is a subtype of 3. >2. has a nice value name and a proper key, it's also subtype of 3. >3. is very broad with precise, but not so common name, it also has >subtypes, which are useful for official classification, but are not >clear for all the other types of conservation > >Therefore I would advice to: > >1. Discourage leisure=nature_reserve and make it a subtag of >boundary=protected_area, like: > a) nature_reserve=yes - 2 uses > b) protected_area=nature_reserve - 22 uses > c) protected_area=nature - 61 uses >if needed, otherwise just use a protect_class=7 or other class if >known. > >2. Drop boundary=national_park, since it's easy to identify them all >and >they are equivalent for boundary=protected_area + protect_class=2 >anyway. > >That's about cleaning the tagging. For rendering I would show all of >them as currently, just using different zoom levels, starting from z8 >currently (this might change in the future, of course): >- z8+: national parks and wilderness areas (both are big by definition) >- z9+: important natural protected areas (class 1-6, with hatched 1a >probably) >- z10+: other natural protected areas (class 7, maybe also 12, 14 and >97-99) >- z11+: protected areas without class and leisure=nature_reserve > >This is just a rough sketch, however it have some nice properties: >- all the existing schemes are visible (boundary=national_park can be >dropped later) >- more important objects are rendered first >- less precise tagging is rendered late > >Another important factor might be their size (so for example small >national parks wouldn't be shown on z8), but it needs a lot of >worldwide >testing. > >-- >"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
