Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 14:49:40 -0700 Clifford Snow wrote: > I’m probably getting out into the weeds here, but I think it’s worth > mentioning that there are also *state park properties*… > > *State Park Properties:* Lands owned by the agency that are being > held for future development (and lack an

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 5:51 PM Clifford Snow wrote: > I've been following this thread but haven't chimed in yet. I wanted to talk > to someone that works in State Parks. I contact Neil Lasley with Washington > State Parks and asked him his impression of the discussion and how the state > view p

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

I've been following this thread but haven't chimed in yet. I wanted to talk to someone that works in State Parks. I contact Neil Lasley with Washington State Parks and asked him his impression of the discussion and how the state view parks. Here is what he had to say. Good to hear from you! I can

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:32 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > All looks OK at first glance, Kev, except for one minor typo - you've got two > Class 25's - I assume Historic should actually be 26? Typo corrected, and further notes about class 26 added. (I can't *quite* count all the instances of cla

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 13:41, Kevin Kenny wrote: [Class 26] > I have no good examples to offer. Me neither. But I can't say no such objects exist. It could happen that some place becomes a protected area because it was once occupied by colonialists, but even then I'd expect it to fall into an

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 6:58 AM Paul Allen wrote: > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 05:24, Kevin Kenny wrote: > Class 26 appears to encompass two things. Colonial-era entities, if purely > historic, shouldn't concern us. OTOH, if they are a protected area by virtue > of once being colonial-era entities th

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 05:24, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I had earnestly hoped to avoid the pain of coming up with a tagging > proposal I'm sorry to have been amongst those who caused you that pain. > Suggestions are, of course, welcome, bearing in mind the above caveats. > Class 26 appears to en

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

All looks OK at first glance, Kev, except for one minor typo - you've got two Class 25's - I assume Historic should actually be 26? Will have a fuller read later :-) Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstr

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 8:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I think it may be difficult to get protect_class=21 rendered, unless the tag > is more precisely defined. While you are using this tag specifically for > recreation related protected areas, the current wiki page says that it can be > use

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Jul 30, 2019, 9:54 AM by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 00:51 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <> > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com > >: > >> -1 to a site relation for an area with a defined outer boundary. >> > > >> >> Relation = boundary (and

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 00:51 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > -1 to a site relation for an area with a defined outer boundary. > > Relation = boundary (and =multipolygon) works fine for defining an area, > and you can make holes to exclude at my “outparcels” or vill

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:02 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 29. Jul 2019, at 16:37, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > There are other historic sites embedded in the park > are all these sites mentioned to be part of the state park, or do they simply > happen to be within the boundaries? I'm not

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

-1 to a site relation for an area with a defined outer boundary. Relation = boundary (and =multipolygon) works fine for defining an area, and you can make holes to exclude at my “outparcels” or villages which are not part of the official protected area. Mappers don’t need to add things to relatio

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 29. Jul 2019, at 16:37, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > There are other historic sites embedded in the park are all these sites mentioned to be part of the state park, or do they simply happen to be within the boundaries? If the definition of the park is a list of areas a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:44 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Maybe you can see (and map) the state park as one thing and the nature > reserve within it as another? For the state park you would need to say it is > a state park and has this name and or number (usually there will be an > identifie

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 29. Jul 2019, at 14:50, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 4:22 AM Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> I didn’t know we were bound to IUCN classes. IMHO we can have our own >> system, while it should ideally allow to distinguish all the IUCN classes, >> it doe

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 13:52, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > We return to the original idea proposed at the very start of this > thread: 'protect_class=21 protection_object=recreation' for these > features. Except for the ugliness of using numeric values for > protect_class, it sounds as if you might agr

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 4:22 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I didn’t know we were bound to IUCN classes. IMHO we can have our own system, > while it should ideally allow to distinguish all the IUCN classes, it doesn’t > mean we cannot have more qualifiers, if they seem useful. We return to the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 7:58 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > “how can a protected_AREA be anything but an area?” > > Right. Please don’t add area=yes to these features. If you're saying that the alternative is for mappers to wait, possibly years, for an approved osm2pgsql stylesheet+Lua change, and

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 00:08, Kevin Kenny wrote: There are no sizable cities in the park, but dozens of towns and > villages of a few thousand inhabitants each. > I can think of only one city in the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park (but I'm not that familiar with it) and that's the second-small

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone On 29. Jul 2019, at 01:18, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> Putting on my cynic hat, I'd say you'll probably get too many objections for >> it to happen: >> people will say you have to manually ensure area=yes is actually valid in >> each situation; > > Yeah. Although, how can a prot

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 29. Jul 2019, at 01:17, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > admin_level isn't *wrong*, it just doesn't help. With or without > admin_level, there's no IUCN-defined protect_class that fits. I didn’t know we were bound to IUCN classes. IMHO we can have our own system, while it shoul

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

“how can a protected_AREA be anything but an area?” Right. Please don’t add area=yes to these features. This tag is only needed for features that can be either a linear feature OR an area, for example barrier=hedge. (Mapping large protected areas mapped as closed ways to relations of type=bounda

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 5:56 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:35, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> Would it be appropriate to propose a mechanical edit to add area=yes >> to closed ways that are tagged boundary={aboriginal_lands, >> national_park, protected_area} and lack any other keys that

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 5:47 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 28. Jul 2019, at 22:23, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > > But this doesn't really address the problem. We can't fix State Parks > > by making them 'boundary=national_park admin_level=4' because they > > don't function as 'national park' i

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 5:42 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 21:25, Kevin Kenny wrote: > >> But this doesn't really address the problem. We can't fix State Parks >> by making them 'boundary=national_park admin_level=4' because they >> don't function as 'national park' in the IUCN de

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:35, Kevin Kenny wrote: Nevertheless, to some extent, we're dealing with "the language of > OpenStreetMap is UK English as interpreted by Germans," Sounds like the setup for a joke. Or a goat song. Would it be appropriate to propose a mechanical edit to add area=yes >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 22:23, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > But this doesn't really address the problem. We can't fix State Parks > by making them 'boundary=national_park admin_level=4' because they > don't function as 'national park' in the IUCN deffinition of the term. the propos

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone On 28. Jul 2019, at 22:23, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> For specific kind of sites (e.g. protected under a specific international >> treaty) we could have specific tags to identify them if desired, e.g. >> protection_context=natura2000 >> or >> protection_context=state_park >> (no

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 21:25, Kevin Kenny wrote: But this doesn't really address the problem. We can't fix State Parks > by making them 'boundary=national_park admin_level=4' because they > don't function as 'national park' in the IUCN deffinition of the term. > Instead, the typical State Park is

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:38 AM Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 15:42, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> Second, it pushes the problem down one level. Near me, there are >> 'County Parks' that are functionally pretty much the same as State >> Parks, and even 'County Forests', 'County Nature Prese

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 10:36 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > we do have an established numbered scheme for admin_levels, it could be > reused to tag the administrative level that instituted the protected area, > for a state park it would have the value 4, the key could remain > “admin_level” a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 17:34, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > While admin_level is numeric, they numbers are already widely known, > so it would be fine to reuse the tag admin_level=4 to specify the > administrative level of a certain protected area, I think, especially > if th

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 15:42, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I dislike the numeric classification as well. > That's good. We agree on something. :) I dislike 'leisure=state_park' for two reasons. > > First, it preëmpts the 'leisure' tag. It turns out that there are > State Parks that are also somethin

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

While admin_level is numeric, they numbers are already widely known, so it would be fine to reuse the tag admin_level=4 to specify the administrative level of a certain protected area, I think, especially if the operator=* is not the same. > 'strict_nature_reserve', 'wilderness_area', 'national_pa

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 15:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: we do have an established numbered scheme for admin_levels, it could be > reused to tag the administrative level that instituted the protected area, > for a state park it would have the value 4, the key could remain > “admin_level” also in

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 8:04 AM Paul Allen wrote: > I have no objections to protect_class as supplemental information that data > consumers can make > use of as they wish (including ignoring it). I have an intense dislike of > numbers being used for > anything other than numeric values because

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 14:03, Paul Allen wrote: > > I have an intense dislike of numbers being used for > anything other than numeric values because they are not amenable to human > inspection. Sure, > editors can unobfuscate things by using an internal lookup table, but tha

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 02:36, Paul Johnson wrote: > I'm on board with a state park specific tag. I find protect class to be a > clunky answer and not entirely humanly intuitive compared to something like > leisure=state_park > +1 I have no objections to protect_class as supplemental informatio

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2019, at 07:51, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > I didn’t realize that all of the protect_class>6 values were invented for > osm. In that case, I see no reason to use any values for protect_class above > 7. > > None of the higher values is used very frequently,

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

I didn’t realize that all of the protect_class>6 values were invented for osm. In that case, I see no reason to use any values for protect_class above 7. None of the higher values is used very frequently, and it’s impossible for me to remember which each one means, especially the values from 21 to

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 9:36 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > I'm on board with a state park specific tag. I find protect class to be a > clunky answer and not entirely humanly intuitive compared to something like > leisure=state_park The non-intuitiveness may prove to be a hidden advantage. At leas

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 8:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > We should discuss this at Github to get other ideas and opinions. In > particular, please make a well-reasoned argument for why we need to supposed > boundaries tagged on closed ways at #3785 - try to be concise and objective. I'll work

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

I'm on board with a state park specific tag. I find protect class to be a clunky answer and not entirely humanly intuitive compared to something like leisure=state_park On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > We should discuss this at Github to get other ideas and opinions. I

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

We should discuss this at Github to get other ideas and opinions. In particular, please make a well-reasoned argument for why we need to supposed boundaries tagged on closed ways at #3785 - try to be concise and objective. I think it may be difficult to get protect_class=21 rendered, unless the ta

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:10 AM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > For your New York State park examples, protect_class=21 might be the best > option, so go ahead and add this tagging, in addition to tagging any specific > areas within that qualify as a leisure=park or nature_reserve > > But many State

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Kevin, For your New York State park examples, protect_class=21 might be the best option, so go ahead and add this tagging, in addition to tagging any specific areas within that qualify as a leisure=park or nature_reserve But many State parks on the West Coast are similar to national parks, eg man

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

G'day Kevin Personally, I can't see a problem with anything that you have suggested here. Go for it! Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Summary: I propose that the unifying feature of the typical State Park is its protection status, and propose that one tag combination that ought to appear on its boundary is `boundary=protected_area protect_class=21`. I solicit community feedback before trying to stitch this idea into the Wiki or o