Re “Have we found the covert reason why carto still doesn't render [Protected areas]”
No need for conspiracy theories. We simply need more contributors at openstreetmap-carto who are willing to volunteer their time to fix these issues. But we are about to start rendering the equivalent protected_class boundaries for national parks and nature reserves in the next release, this month: And we would like to render aboriginal_lands and protect_class=24 in the same style, as a brownish outline, unless there are clear objections to one of the tags. See: https://github.com/gravitystorm/pull/3509 “Add rendering for protected_area” And https://github.com/gravitystorm/pull/3521 “Add Aboriginal Areas” -Joseph On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:55 AM Doug Hembry <doughem...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/26/18 17:00, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> and I fail to see how much more > >> difficult it is to tag "boundary=protected area" and > "protect_class=24" > > > > Because "24" is a completely random code, unlike > boundary=aboriginal_lands > > And on 11/26/18 17:00, Frederick Ramm wrote: > >We generally *try* and make our data human-readable. If archaeologists > >dig up an old planet file in 1000 years, then finding a tag > >boundary=aboriginal_lands is more useful to them than protect_class=24. > (Thanks for the levity, Frederick. And I take the point, but see below) > > Mateusz and Frederick, > Everyone seems to have forgotten boundary=administrative with its > associated admin_level=n tag, which IMHO is pretty analogous to > boundary=protected_area with its protect_class=n tag. They even both > have look-up tables by country. And the class numbers are not arbitrary, > Mateusz, - they map to IUCN categories. > > But seriously, how many aboriginal lands do you think a mapper would > have to tag before they remember "protect_class=24"? > > And, as for the future archaeologists, and "human readable": Correct use > of the boundary=protected_area tag actually requires the use of > protect_title=* tag that provides users with the human readable title of > this area-type (note: not the "name", which may also be present). ie, > protect_title= Indigenous Protected Areas, or Indian Reservations, or > Terra Indigena, or Territorio Indigena, etc,.. (to borrow from the > proposal page), or perhaps just "aboriginal_lands" as a default. The > protect_class groups the area-types of broadly similar purpose and/or > level of protection out of what could be hundreds of variously titled > protected-area-types around the world. Future archaeologists should be > pleased. > > But although I don't buy your "numbers are bad" argument - nevertheless, > having read the other comments on this topic I am almost persuaded that > protected_area is not really appropriate to describe what is essentially > a sovereign country. It might even be considered demeaning. Something > based on administrative boundaries (which I don't have much experience > of) might be better. I still think introducing another top-level > "boundary= aboriginal_lands" tag is wrong. If we're not careful, > boundary= will wind up like amenity=* - too many darned fragmented > values under one tag. But I'm dropping out of this particular discussion > (... and there was much rejoicing.... :-)) > > What I'm really interested in is the use of boundary=protected_area to > accurately describe Nature-protected-areas and > Resources-protected-areas. The "numbers are bad" assertion worries me > and prompts a broader question: if this is "policy", does it mean that > boundary=protected_area, and protect_class=* tags are doomed in OSM? > Have we found the covert reason why carto still doesn't render it, > despite the fact that it could be rendered (at least initially) exactly > like boundary=national_park? And despite the fact that there are 70,000 > uses around the planet? Could we be excused for suspecting that there > is an "OSM Establishment" who would like to see it deprecated and go > away? OK, maybe I have a nasty suspicious mind - but I can't help > wondering. If true, could someone please come clean and just tell us to > stop using it (and tell us what else to use)? > > I'm also wondering (an even broader question) at the justification for > making a decision like this (the approval of boundary=aboriginal_lands) > on the basis of 20 or so votes (so far, hopefully more to come) mostly > from involved and passionate supporters of the proposal out of the > hundreds of thousands in the OSM community. Where are the OSM'ers who > originally created the boundary=protected_area proposal and got it > approved. Have they voted? And likewise for all the mappers responsible > for the 70,000 uses? Have we had any involvement from South American > mappers, where there seem to be a lot of protect_class=24 uses? This is > clearly a question for another time (and mailing list) and it may have > come up before, but it IMHO we need a more broadly based way of deciding > things like this. > > Cheers.. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
