Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #40371
    JohnPercy
    JohnPercy
    Participant

    In the UK, local nature reserves are supposed to be mapped as protect_class=7, according to the Wiki.
    As far as I can see, protect_class 7 is not included in the tag mapping. Could it please be added.
    At present I think all or most are also mapped with leisure=nature_reserve so the appearance on the maps are OK, but I can’t suppose that will necessarily continue.

    Also although protect class 24 is combined with class 21 and others, it is a special case and should really be excluded there and combined with boundary=aboriginal_lands. Is this possible?

    Furthermore, although protect class 11 heads a list of 12-19 the wiki says it is never used (ditto 13, although there is an apparent typo in the wiki). Probably rather confusing to include 11 (also 13).

    #40374
    ChristianK
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    Hi John,

    protect_class=7:
    WIKI says: /*nature-feature area: similar to 4. but without IUCN-level*/
    so I added 7 to 4 as EquivalentValue.
    Done…

    Also although protect class 24 is combined with class 21 and others, it is a special case and should really be excluded there and combined with boundary=aboriginal_lands. Is this possible?

    I could TagTransfer ‘boundary=protected_area AND protect_class=24’ to boundary=aboriginal_lands
    OK, @tobias ?

    11-19:
    Hmm…
    To be serious, for me these classes have no relevance for hike/cycle maps.
    IMO we could skip these classes completely

    What I’v done with the latest updade: I skipp all areas/zones with “heritage:operator=whc” cause mappers are adding all these world_heritage_zones as protected areas. In the end the value of the danube (the Wachau) showed up as “protected_zone” = ridiculous..
    AND, as every year dozends of these areas are added we end up with numerous protected areas useless for hike/cycle maps.

    Same for class=23

    IMO ony protected areas should show up on map where hiker/cyclist could face restrictions (eg. for class=1-7,24,25, maybe 14, aso)
    Open for discussion ;-)

    Best regards
    Christian

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #40376
    JohnPercy
    JohnPercy
    Participant

    @Christian
    Thanks. That all sounds good to me.
    However, it’s not just restricted areas which are of interest — some protected areas are also destinations or target areas for hikers and cyclists, for example nature reserves and areas of natural beauty. But maybe I misunderstood you.

    #40383
    Tobias
    Tobias
    Moderator

    I could TagTransfer ‚boundary=protected_area AND protect_class=24‘ to boundary=aboriginal_lands
    OK, @tobias ?

    Sounds good to me

    What I’v done with the latest updade: I skipp all areas/zones with „heritage:operator=whc“ cause mappers are adding all these world_heritage_zones as protected areas. In the end the value of the danube (the Wachau) showed up as „protected_zone“ = ridiculous..
    AND, as every year dozends of these areas are added we end up with numerous protected areas useless for hike/cycle maps.

    You mean every area with „heritage:operator=whc“ isn’t included in the maps? Because then areas like Yellowstone etc. will be skipped, too. The Wachau has a protect_class=22 (cultural assets), so it shouldn’t be re rendered as nature reserve. That’s why we added all values – so that either those without protect_class or those with the expected values can be shown. That’s also why the non-nature ones are not usefully grouped.
    I’ll look a bit more into this…

    Developer of Elevate mapstyle

    #40398
    ChristianK
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    You mean every area with „heritage:operator=whc“

    This was a Q&D action when I saw that whole Wachau was green crosshatched – I really don’t want this.
    There is a growing Number of such whc areas (all tourist managers want their area to added to the list) = means a lot useless Relations.
    While whc areas where a great thing in the beginning – no its a pain and (IMO) a bussiness that drives itself without any added value.
    IMO we have to sort out these things in some ways.
    Yellowstone is OK cause there are restrictions in this area and its a real wonder – Wachau and similar regions are nice/beautifull but …

    Maybe we could change the appearence – eg. Lonvia renders the borders but with no filling of the area.
    (not suitable for millitary areas)

    We should think about which areas we really need to include in the maps to offer a real benefit of information without annoying the users (including the autor ;-) )

    :)

    #40400
    JohnPercy
    JohnPercy
    Participant

    If Wachau is protect class 22, then it should not show up on Elevate at all as far as I can see. So why was it appearing?
    Isn’t the protect class the best way to deal with this anyway?

    #40402
    Tobias
    Tobias
    Moderator

    If Wachau is protect class 22, then it should not show up on Elevate at all as far as I can see. So why was it appearing?
    Isn’t the protect class the best way to deal with this anyway?

    That’s what I thought, and didn’t have time to inspect properly. Maybe it wasn’t 22 at the export of the map data or had/has another tag that messed everything up.
    It should be possible to render everything correct despite not filtering WHC in the maps. WHC sites are really diverse, natural should be shown.

    Developer of Elevate mapstyle

    #40407
    JohnPercy
    JohnPercy
    Participant

    Wachau Cultural Landscape has heritage=1 as well as protect_class=22. Does that cause a match on protect_class=1, with the usual shared value bug?

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #40409
    Tobias
    Tobias
    Moderator

    Wachau Cultural Landscape has heritage=1 as well as protect_class=22. Does that cause a match on protect_class=1, with the usual shared value bug?

    Good find, John. That’s probably it, Christian?

    So here’s a proposal for changing the values:
    Have these as separate values, as some might want to render those different/not at all. All nature reserve etc. related, just 14 is related to certain species – so often no access, too:
    key=”protect_class” value=”pc_1″ equivalent-values=”1,fpier,1a,1b,1A,1B” renderable=”false”
    key=”protect_class” value=”pc_2″ equivalent-values=”2″ renderable=”false”
    key=”protect_class” value=”pc_3″ equivalent-values=”3″ renderable=”false”
    key=”protect_class” value=”pc_4″ equivalent-values=”4″ renderable=”false”
    key=”protect_class” value=”pc_5″ equivalent-values=”5,6″ renderable=”false”
    key=”protect_class” value=”pc_7″ equivalent-values=”7″ renderable=”false”
    key=”protect_class” value=”pc_97″ equivalent-values=”97″ renderable=”false”
    key=”protect_class” value=”pc_98″ equivalent-values=”98″ renderable=”false”
    key=”protect_class” value=”pc_99″ equivalent-values=”99″ renderable=”false”
    key=”protect_class” value=”pc_14″ equivalent-values=”14″ renderable=”false”

    Either skip all boundary=protected_area with those values or group them:
    key=”protect_class” value=”pc_11″ equivalent-values=”11,12,13,15,16,19″ renderable=”false”
    key=”protect_class” value=”pc_21″ equivalent-values=”21,22,23,26,27,29″ renderable=”false”

    Transform:
    boundary=protected_area & protect_class=24 -> boundary=aboriginal_lands
    boundary=protected_area & protect_class=25 -> landuse=military

    Developer of Elevate mapstyle

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #40424
    ChristianK
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    Thanks a lot
    @John
    @tobias

    Actualy pc_11/21 is still in the tag_mapping – however objects with
    boundary=protected_area and pc_11/21 could be filtered out in future.
    .. after some testing ..

    I will start UK, Bayern, Austria maps this evening.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #40426
    JohnPercy
    JohnPercy
    Participant

    By the way, what is the significance of fpier which goes with protect class 1? I can’t find any reference to it anywhere.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #40428
    Tobias
    Tobias
    Moderator

    fpier

    Good question, I just copied the values form the previous tag-mapping.

    Developer of Elevate mapstyle

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #40451
    ChristianK
    ChristianK
    Keymaster

    Maps for testing of new tag-mapping are available here:

    https://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/misc/openstreetmap/openandromaps/mapsV4/test/

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #40455
    Tobias
    Tobias
    Moderator

    Oh, my mistake – we already have values like “pc_1” (for popcat), sorry!
    Christian, can you change protect_class values from e.g. “pc_1” to “pr_1”? This time I checked, no value starting with “pr_” in the tag-mapping…
    Besides that – tests are looking good!

    Developer of Elevate mapstyle

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #40457
    JohnPercy
    JohnPercy
    Participant

    Yes, looking good.
    @Christian I had remapped all the protect class=1 in the UK, as they had the wrong class, so I’m now having to look further afield to test! Could you do a test map of Ireland as well, please.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.