Open Dimitar5555 opened 1 year ago
Thanks for the suggestion. However, i suggest we decline this.
For administrative boundaries we have clear consensus that type=boundary
is the only acceptable relation type. And hence this is being required in #4431. But for boundary=protected_area
this is not the case. Furthermore >70 percent of all boundary=protected_area
relations are also tagged leisure=nature_reserve
. And use of type=boundary
vs. type=multipolygon
on leisure=nature_reserve
is about equal. Hence we are not anywhere near consensus among mappers regarding this.
But for
boundary=protected_area
this is not the case. Furthermore >70 percent of allboundary=protected_area
relations are also tagged leisure=nature_reserve. And use oftype=boundary
vs.type=multipolygon
onleisure=nature_reserve
is about equal.
This is true, but if you also add boundary
in the mix, you will get ~16k for type=boundary
and ~8k for type=multipolygon
(https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1z4l).
Currently relations tagged with
type=multipolygon
+boundary=protected_area
are rendered. The problem is that they should be tagged withtype=boundary
instead. The current usages of the different tag combinations are shown below.type=boundary
type=multipolygon
boundary=protected_area
boundary=*