- Beiträge
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).
Voluntary and Velocity themes - https://voluntary.nichesite.org
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 completelyWhat 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
Christian1 Teilnehmer(n) gefällt dieser Beitrag
@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.Voluntary and Velocity themes - https://voluntary.nichesite.org
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
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 😉 )
🙂
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?Voluntary and Velocity themes - https://voluntary.nichesite.org
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
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?
Voluntary and Velocity themes - https://voluntary.nichesite.org
2 users thanked author for this post.
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=militaryDeveloper of Elevate mapstyle
2 users thanked author for this post.
By the way, what is the significance of fpier which goes with protect class 1? I can’t find any reference to it anywhere.
Voluntary and Velocity themes - https://voluntary.nichesite.org
1 Teilnehmer(n) gefällt dieser Beitrag
fpier
Good question, I just copied the values form the previous tag-mapping.
Developer of Elevate mapstyle
1 Teilnehmer(n) gefällt dieser Beitrag
Maps for testing of new tag-mapping are available here:
https://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/misc/openstreetmap/openandromaps/mapsV4/test/
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 Teilnehmer(n) gefällt dieser Beitrag
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.Voluntary and Velocity themes - https://voluntary.nichesite.org
- Sie müssen angemeldet sein, um zu diesem Thema eine Antwort verfassen zu können.