Add rendering for boundary=protected_area

[daganzdaanda]

After #563 is sorted, maybe we can have a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area and the values of protect_class there.
If I understand correctly, these aren't rendered at all at the moment. But the tag is used, and sometimes replaces the less specific leisure=nature_reserve.

[matthijsmelissen]

See also:
https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3102
https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3461

[dieterdreist]

This classification system also has the advantage of specifying the
level/importance of protection (e.g. regional, national) so we can choose
more easily the appropriate zoom level to show these.

Requires to take a look at key "protect_class" at the same time, to choose
appropriate colours, because this is not only for nature protection but
also for cultural protection (e.g. historic monuments).

[astoff]

Here are some thoughts about rendering protected areas.

Compatibility with existing data

Because most applications, and in particular renderers, do not yet recognize the tag boundary=protected_area, there are not many objects using this tag (at least in Brazil). However, there are quite a few areas tagged with the combination boundary=national_park, leisure=nature_reserve, protect_class=*, plus other ancillary tags defined in the protected_area wiki page. Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3425868. It would be important that the renderer treats this case correctly

Levels of protection

As @dieterdreist mentioned, the value of the tag protect_class key can be used to determine the "importance" of the corresponding area. In the case of nature reserves, the simplest distinction to make is between "integral protection" and "sustainable use" areas. The former can be rendered in a more prominent way. At least in Brazil, integral protection areas are those with protect_class between 1 and 3, and sustainable use areas are those with protect_class between 4 and 6.

I also wanted to remark that there are some vast, but somewhat lax kinds of protected areas, which sometimes include whole towns inside them (in Brazil, they always have protect_class=5). Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3426617. It might be a little challenging to find an appropriate way to render those.

I like this idea: #563 (comment).

Indigenous lands

Besides rendering areas with protect_class ranging from 1 to 7 (which correspond to nature reserves of various kinds), it would be nice to render areas with protect_class=24 (indigenous areas and the like). This could be done in a style similar to nature reserves, but with a different color. Here is an example of a region containing several such areas: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/-6.932/-54.009.

[matkoniecz]

Following, as I've been using this key quite a bit.

You can use "Notifications" settings (in sidebar on the right, under labels) to follow/ignore single ticket.

[olegseliverstov]

Besides it would be nice to render areas with protect_class=97 and 98 (important nature reserves)
97 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura_2000
98 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Network_of_Biosphere_Reserves and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ramsar_wetlands_of_international_importance

[pnorman]

Seems to overlap with existing established tags. What types of protected areas are there that are not covered by the tags already rendered?

[daganzdaanda]

There is some overlap, especially with leisure=nature_reserve and boundary=national_park. But this scheme is a lot better, IMHO it should be encouraged by rendering.

I would give all the Nature-protected-areas (protect_class=1-7|97-99) a fat green border and a label based on the area size. It might be sensible to make some class(es) more prominent, that could be done with a full colour fill or a even thicker border.

I've no idea how common resources-protected-areas (protect_class=11-19) are, and if they are mapped a lot. I would still give them an outline, maybe thinner than the first group, or another colour. If these get mapped to much and interfere with the general readability, we could remove the rendering again.

Social-protected-areas (21-29) are also worth rendering, especially 24. Maybe a thick yellow border? Class 25 is military, we got that covered already.

I believe that an area can have more than one class associated, so we should think about what to do with lists like protect_class=5;12

[pnorman]

There is some overlap, especially with leisure=nature_reserve and boundary=national_park. But this scheme is a lot better, IMHO it should be encouraged by rendering.

Where there is an adequate existing tagging scheme, we don't particularly want to encourage a new incompatible one, as it makes it harder for all data consumers.

Social-protected-areas (21-29) are also worth rendering, especially 24. Maybe a thick yellow border? Class 25 is military, we got that covered already.

Aboriginal lands have existing tagging, generally boundary=aboriginal_lands

[matkoniecz]

protect_class is not in the database.

[matthijsmelissen]

boundary=protected_area has 23 079 instances, not exactly rare compared to leisure=nature_reserve (51 632) and boundary=national_park (11 362).

[matkoniecz]

Note that half is tagged also with protect_class http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/protect_class#overview

[dieterdreist]

Il giorno 07/ott/2014, alle ore 23:09, Paul Norman notifications@github.com ha scritto:

There is some overlap, especially with leisure=nature_reserve and boundary=national_park. But this scheme is a lot better, IMHO it should be encouraged by rendering.

Where there is an adequate existing tagging scheme, we don't particularly want to encourage a new incompatible one, as it makes it harder for all

the currently supported scheme has some limitations because if a nature reserve is not defined on the national level the only alternative is leisure=nature_reserve. This is then used for all kind of protected areas (municipal, provincial, regional, international level) making it hard to determine the importance (besides size). Also "leisure" is not well fitting for a nature reserve in general but in particular for those cases where access is limited or restricted. These are old concepts, and the "new" scheme protected area was introduced to overcome these limitations.=

[astoff]

Where there is an adequate existing tagging scheme, we don't particularly want to encourage a new incompatible one, as it makes it harder for all data consumers.

I have imported and manually mapped a number of protected areas in Brazil (both nature reserves and indigenous lands), and I would say that the boundary=national_park / leisure=nature_reserve scheme is not well suited for us here, while the protected_area scheme fits our needs perfectly.

Before moving to the new tagging scheme, we had to use boundary=national_park and/or leisure=nature_reserve on a number of areas that were neither national, nor parks, nor leisure-oriented (for instance, state-owned biological reserves).

More importantly, with the old tagging scheme there is no way to distinguish very strict conservation areas (e.g., national parks) from less strict ones (national forests, protected landscapes, etc.).

Aboriginal lands have existing tagging, generally boundary=aboriginal_lands

It would be pretty weird to use this tag anywhere the term "aboriginal" is not used -- including the US, where one talks of "indigenous" or "native" people. The word "aboriginal" may even be considered politically incorrect in some places. That's why the numbered values for protect_class make much more sense.

boundary=protected_area has 23 079 instances, not exactly rare compared to leisure=nature_reserve (51 632) and boundary=national_park (11 362).

Note also that there one fifth of all nature_reserves (10 642) also have the tag boundary=protected_area. The explanation for this is that people want to use the new tagging scheme, but keep leisure=nature_reserve for rendering purposes (at least that's what we have been doing in Brazil).

[planemad]

In light of the difficulties implementing rendering of boundary=protected_area fully, can we atleast start recognizing some of the tag combinations to enable the migration of tags from national_park and nature_reserve?

My suggestions is to start rendering [boundary=protected_area][protect_class=2] exactly like [boundary=national_park].

Starting step would be to add the protect_class key so that we can start playing around. Not sure what the procedure for this is?

[matthijsmelissen]

In light of the difficulties implementing rendering of boundary=protected_area fully, can we atleast start recognizing some of the tag combinations to enable the migration of tags from national_park and nature_reserve?

Unfortunately not, the entire problem is that we currently can't use protect_class as this key is not loaded in the database.

[planemad]

@math1985 when do database keys get updated? This will probably be scheduled for sometime right?

[tilmanb]

See #1286 . It will be done at some point in the future.

[ianmcorvidae]

I don't know if this is the same problem or a different one, but http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353717755 is tagged with both boundary=protected_area and leisure=nature_reserve; it renders as leisure=nature_reserve at z13 and higher, but z12 and lower the area doesn't appear at all. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/163135968 by comparison, tagged only with leisure=nature_reserve, renders properly at all levels. Seems like some sort of conflict.

[jfirebaugh]

I changed the recommended tagging for U.S. National Forests to boundary=protected_area and updated the forests in USFS Region 6 before realizing this would cause them not to be rendered on osm.org. I'm considering reverting to tagging for the renderer with boundary=national_park despite widespread agreement that this is incorrect.

Am I correct in interpreting that the consensus here is that boundary=protected_area should be rendered, and now it's just a matter of database update cadence?

[kocio-pl]

I guess I can simply reuse this code example now: #2830 (comment), but with the whole Nature-protected-area range (1-7, 97-99), because now we don't have to classify them - they will be shown on the map as early as they are big enough.

[sig-pnrnm]

Hi,
I do not have the level in English, nor on OSM, to understand all the subtleties of this subject.
However, I wanted to point out that we have a problem in France of rendering as regards the "Regional Natural Parks" (PNR).
These are rendered on most proprietary maps, but not on OSM.
Also, it is common for well-intentioned contributors to add the tag "leisure = nature_reserve" to allow the display of these parks.
As a geomatician in one of these parks, I find it hard to convince my colleagues to not use "G**gle maps" where PNRs are rendered.
It would be nice to be able to manage this simple case: the PNR can be identified by this combination of tags:

• boundary = protected_area
• protect_class = 5
• protection_title = parc naturel régional

Thanks for your help !

(edit)
I add the link to the french discussion about it : http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Rendu-OSM-des-Parcs-naturels-regionaux-PNR-tp5908000.html

[sig-pnrnm]

To illustrate, here is the rendering of PNRs when they had the wrong tag (leisure=nature_reserve).
Today, they are no longer visible, which is a shame.

[Adamant36]

In California a lot of people tag protected areas as leisure=park to get them to show up on the map. Some of them got re-tagged to boundary=protected_area recently. Which led to notes and messages by people who thought the places had been deleted when they didn't and then were upset that they were not being rendered anymore. Even though the places are still mapped. I share their feelings. Protected areas in California are major areas. As I am sure is true for ones in other places. They should be rendered.

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

On 2. Nov 2018, at 13:47, Adamant36 ***@***.***> wrote: In California a lot of people tag protected areas as leisure=park to get them to show up on the map. Some of them got re-tagged to boundary=protected_area recently.

leisure =park doesn’t seem right, but natural_reserve is a generic tag for nature protected areas that renders.

[Adamant36]

@dieterdreist, yeah leisure=park is totally not right. Which is why they get re-tagged. Although, then people will add the park tag to them again. nature_reserve works sometimes. I don't like the leisure insinuation with it for a protected area though. As a lot of protected areas are either not accessible to the public or have very strict usage rules. I don't think anyone is going to tromp through a protected marsh due to how it is tagged on OSM, but its something I think about. Anyway, I prefer the protected area tag over nature reserve, which is to general imho, because it allows for more specific tagging of the classification of protection the place has. Maybe boundary=protected_area can at least be rendered the same as nature reserves. I don't see any reason why they couldn't be.

[dieterdreist]

right, I agree rendering of boundary=protected_area would be desirable for some protection classes (or maybe for all but with different style), just wanted to point out there is kind of a workaround without stretching the tags beyond their meaning.

[kocio-pl]

I still plan to do implement it, since it looks like this is parallel type which is not possible to classify related to natural reserves. I just didn't find the time to return to this particular problem yet - #2830 was first try, but I had to rethink the issue to understand it better.

[sig-pnrnm]

Rather than want to manage all categories of "boundary = protected_area", the easiest way could be to go step by step, on combinations of tags that do not pose problems.

In French, there is an expression that says "the best is the enemy of good": everything in its time.

So, while "preaching for my parish" (not sure that this expression exists in English), I would suggest that you integrate the combination of tags proposed below to the main rendering: it has no ambiguity!

    boundary = protected_area
    protect_class = 5
    protection_title = parc naturel régional

For other categories/combinations (or for this one if there is debate), this could be managed in individual issues ?

[kocio-pl]

Nobody yet claimed that individual classes are the problem, you are the first to suggest it. Why do you think so? My take is to use the whole section of similar classes.

[sig-pnrnm]

This may be due to my bad English level!
I see that the subject seems complex, but I do not understand all the complexity!

[kocio-pl]

I took some time to look into the problem and here are some key findings (which evolved through the time):

• Add rendering for boundary=protected_area #603 (comment)
• Add rendering for boundary=protected_area #603 (comment)
• Add rendering for boundary=protected_area #603 (comment)
• Add rendering for boundary=protected_area #603 (comment)

Of course now I have to recollect things once again, but this is doable. Most of the hard work (research) has been done already.

[dieterdreist]

Am Fr., 2. Nov. 2018 um 15:41 Uhr schrieb kocio-pl <notifications@github.com

: Nobody yet claimed that individual classes are the problem, you are the first to suggest it. Why do you think so? My take is to use the whole section of similar classes.

originally this was held back because the subtags were not available at the time (no hstore), and the main tag lumps toghether all kind of protection for different reasons (e.g. also cultural protection, heritage, etc.) so to make sense of the tag in rendering it was suggested to wait until the information in the subtags became available for this style

[Bibi56]

Nobody yet claimed that individual classes are the problem

As Dieter said, it was not the blocker but in this long thread, it's easy to (mis)understand that some classes may be difficult to render, Sylvain just suggests to start with the easy cases (related to natural protection).

[kocio-pl]

As far as i remember I was planning to render metaclass Nature-protected-area (1-7,97-99), and not to render Resources-protected-area (11-19) nor Social-protected-area (21-29).

[kennykb]

I have mapped about 400 protect_class=12 areas that are for watershed protection but offer public access for hunting, fishing and hiking. Before you pull the trigger, let me know what I need to do with these. They're not strict wilderness, so 1b isn't right. They're not species-protection, so 4 isn't quite right either. They're protected from essentially all development, 'sustainable' or otherwise, so 6 doesn't quite fit, either. 12 seemed 'least bad' among the classes (with protection_object=water), but I might want to reconsider if 12 is not going to render. These areas are a significant recreational resource, and many adjoin designated wilderness areas and offer alternative access to them. (I've crossed a few to approach less-popular mountaineering routes.) Anyway, let me know what you want me to do.

…

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 16:38 kocio-pl ***@***.*** wrote: As far as i remember I was planning to render metaclass Nature-protected-area (1-7,97-99), and not to render Resources-protected-area (11-19) nor Social-protected-area (21-29). — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#603 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANPUbG8tlvabbSLOfVdfTubvUs365xuks5urK1hgaJpZM4CBGjt> .

[kocio-pl]

I don't know. There's a general hint how to assign protection class - in short, it might need searching by name or discussing it in a proper place:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Protect_classes_for_various_countries

[sig-pnrnm]

Sorry to seem in a hurry for this rendering question, but do you have any idea when this change will be operational?
Are there still technical blocking points? (I'm not sure given my low level in English 😉)
It is true that I can not wait to be able to communicate to my partners on the rendering of the Regional Natural Parks in OSM 😃

[kocio-pl]

It is mostly tedious, boring job with the code, which was sketched in #2830. I cannot give you a time frame for this, since I have not too much time for OSM Carto lately. If somebody is willing to make a PR, it would be faster probably.

[matkoniecz]

It is likely that this issue will be closed by #3509 that introduces rendering for some classes.

Note that it is not rejection for potential rendering of other subtypes of boundary=protected_area. Please open new issues like #3520 to propose other related changes.