rendering boundary=protected_area

[Mahabarata]

Hi,

I don't understand the rendering of this tag :

• sometimes we have a rendering : like here or here or here
• sometimes we don't : like here or here or here

Best regards

[imagico]

We render boundary=protected_area only for specific values of protect_class:

openstreetmap-carto/project.mml

Line 1169 in 871804d

OR (boundary = 'protected_area' AND tags->'protect_class' IN ('1','1a','1b','2','3','4','5','6')))

See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:protect_class

[Mahabarata]

I was thinking there was something like that but the third example with rendering has no protected_class

And the second example with no rendering is a ramsar, an international protection : should be rendering, no ?

[imagico]

I was thinking there was something like that but the third example with rendering has no protected_class

That is rendered as leisure=nature_reserve.

And the second example with no rendering is a ramsar, an international protection : should be rendering, no ?

I just explained the technical reasons for the rendering you see. If that should be changed in some way is a different matter.

[matkoniecz]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/480285588 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/52091672 are not specifying type of protection in any standard format

If it is nature reserve then leisure=nature_reserve would be a good tagging.

If someone wants to use boundary=protected_area then at least specify protect_class tag - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:protect class But maybe some more clear tags are appropriate here.

(I am treating it as request for help in understanding rendering and therefore closing it as answer was given)

[Mahabarata]

I opened this issue because in ID, a way with tag "boundary=proteted_area" has always a rendering.

But of course on carto you may do another rendering, just it is strange to me to have different rendering for the same tag especially when we use the OpenstreetMap (Standard) for the background : I think a lot of people think "strange, the osm's tiles are not up to date".

Best regards

[Mahabarata]

Another problem of your choice : you render only site with a UICN code. Many protected areas have no IUCN code.
The consequence is that some contributors put false protect_code to have a rendering. The example 2 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230067527 in my first post is one of them (on the iucn website, search "Lagarpampa" and you will see).

On the other end, the ramsar site https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/52091672 is not on the iucn website too and according to the wiki page, the protect_class should be 98 which means no rendering, clearly an error.

Please open back this issue and fix the rendering for International protection at least : code 97, 98 and 99.
(it will be ok for me if you don't render others protect_class).

Best regards

[matkoniecz]

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Mistagging_for_the_renderer in general.

Note that for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230067527 leisure = nature_reserve would already result in rendering, without adding fake data damaging OSM (it is nature reserve, right?).

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/52091672 is rendered due to natural=water tag and is show as water

[imagico]

This issue was closed because it is about a question that was answered.

Keep in mind that boundary=protected_area is a tag meant and used to map classification of areas by an administrative authority of some kind (and as such has issues with Verifiability of course). But it does not depend on an area having and IUCN code (whatever that means exactly). The wiki page for protected_class=* contains an extensive list of classifications in different countries and how they map to protected_class=*. Anything that qualifies as boundary=protected_area can by definition also be assigned a protected_class=*.

If you want to suggest changes in rendering i suggest opening a new issue where you make a specific suggestion of what you would like to have changed and why. The reasoning should take the actual use of the tagging in question in OpenStreetMap into account. So if you want to suggest rendering additional protected_class=* values it is highly advisable to take a look at how these values are used practically first.

And it is also a good idea to read up on the extensive past discussion on the matter in #603, #3509 and #3887.

[Mahabarata]

A missing link : #4113, in fact the more appropriate answer to my question