Talk:Tag:boundary=national park

Usage

The page should advise how it should be used. I suggests that through some way of tagging it should show what is protected, what level of protection, and if available, what law and type of organization is behind the protection. As an example, Parque Estadual do Paulo C. Vinhas is ambient reserve of wildlife and plants which makes part of the almost extinct rain forest of Mata Atlantica, protected by the state of Espirito Santo in Brazil, while Parque Caparão is a Federal National Park with complete protection, also in Brazil. It should be possible to derive from the tagging that these two are different, so that special purpose maps can be generated. --Skippern 11:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Amenities

• How to tag Park Headquarters and Ranger Station? It is more than amenity=information ...?

--Hamish 14:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There exists amenity=ranger_station now. Aceman444 (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

How can I map...?

...a national park inside another national park?

Let's see:

In Southern Spain, between the provinces of Almería and Granada, we have "Parque Natural de Sierra Nevada" and "Parque Nacional de Sierra Nevada". The second one is located inside the first, this way we have some kind of enclave. Of course, there is no "double nature reserve in the same place", the "Parque Natural" has an inner boundary, which is also the outer boundary of the "Parque Nacional".

I will try to explain this better if you don't understand me.

I'm somewhat confused, and I need some help! --Schumi4ever 21:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't use relations: the inner region is Natural Park and the outer is National Park. Mark the boundaries and the types, and put the name of the inner region. Make a relation which contain inner and outer region (in JOSM it's easy with some plugin). And put name of "Parque Nacional de Sierra Nevada"in the relation. The Parque Natural of Sierra Nevada is too Parque Nacional, isn't?

I hope this serves, --Xan 18:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This is it: [1], as you can see, there is a yellow zone, the "Parque Nacional"; and a green zone, the "Parque Natural". But they don't overlap each other, the light blue line signs the boundary between them. --Schumi4ever 21:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

For it, just create area for inner park and tag as appropiate and name Parque Nacional. And with the same nodes in boundary and extra nodes create second area and tag is as Parque Natural. Simply. For extra help, I suggest you register in spanish mailing lists (or newbees lists in english) and people help you in details. If you are use JOSM or any other editor, specify in your question. It helps a lot.... You're welcome.--Xan 16:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Rendering

This tag only seems to render when applied to relations... ways do not render currently.--Kozuch 07:54, 12 April 2012 (BST)

boundary=national_park renders on areas, but not ways are brought into the DB as areas. Under some conditions a boundary=national_park won't be an area. Keep in mind that in all cases

• The ways must be closed to form an area
• boundary=national_parks tend to be very large so viewed at low zoom where tiles don't re-render right away

You probably want to turn it into a relation or use an area=yes to force it to be an area. Pnorman (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

An example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/136354575 This is a small area a.k.a. a closed-way in the OSM database. It currently has only the boundary=national_park tag on it, and, as Kozuch points out, it doesn't get rendered.

Pnorman's saying it doesn't get brought into the Mapnik PostGIS rendering database as an area (osm2pgql style config). It's a shame if mappers have to understand such technicalities to understand what the 'standard' rendering is doing. Thinking purely in terms of OSM elements... The answer is you have to add area=yes or make it a relation. But does that make good semantic sense? I'm not so sure. Something to raise a bug about against the renderer config maybe.

-- Harry Wood (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

State / Provincial parks and other lower tier protected areas

How to tag lower tier (state / provincial) protected areas? They fit the definition of national park (nothing in there says that it should be a national or federal government designating these areas) but the tag is national_park which seems inappropriate.

See discussion in my diary entry as well.

I added a link to the IUCN Protected areas Wikipedia page, perhaps that can serve as guidance for more granular tagging.

(unsigned comment apparently added by user/mvexel).

Hi Martijn. A lot has happened with parks in the six-plus years since that diary entry! These days, a lot of people in North America are tagging middle-tier (state, provincial) with EITHER boundary=national_park (which is controversial, but apparently not actively purged and replaced with anything else) as well as boundary=protected_area + protect_class=5. However, I've also seen 21 used instead of 5 per Kevin's (user:ke9tv)'s proposal on his diary entry, an early draft, not a formal proposal. I've also seen 2 used instead of 5, as well as boundary=national_park which seems confused, but is still done (I'd have to OT or taginfo how many). Some are also or only tagged leisure=nature_reserve so it is really all over the map.

Proposed_features/Park_boundary suggests a simple tag "starting with" boundary=protected_area. Adding a protect_class=* value is prudent and preferred (now), though you might want to use an ad hoc basis to determine which value (many haven't memorized the logical mapping, a problem). Yes, this (question on how best to tag such things) both is and has been true for some time, especially in North America (as your diary entry reflects). Personally, I am tagging a lot of these things (including county parks, in some cases) with boundary=protected_area + protect_class=5 for now as an "OK placeholder" but there does not appear to be a clear answer. The proposal syntactically "strips down" all "roughly called or considered parks" to be appropriately tagged with boundary=protected_area (which might sensibly render as an outline). This leaves ambiguous the greater specificity of protect_class=* (as "unspecified as a tag") because sometimes that is true: she who is entering the data knows not any greater specificity than "this is, roughly speaking, what's called a 'park' here, so I'll 'start' tagging it with boundary=protected_area," nothing much more than that (OK, a name=*, too is good!) I think OSM needs this, others do too and we're working on reforming protected areas and protect_class together longer-term. Piece by piece, as things fall out and are surmountable. Stevea (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

area=yes requirement for boundary=national_park

This page has the comment "As of 2018-05, area=yes is necessary to display a simple closed polyline that is not a type = boundary relation on the OSM standard map."

Upon review of the Carto source code, I believe this is no longer the case (see project.mml lines 1144-1146) and this note should be removed. Can someone with more familiarity confirm or deny? -

See relevant discussion: [2]. From what I understand, the area=yes requirement is only for closed ways versus relations?

-- ZeLonewolf (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that should be removed. --Jeisenbe (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Irrespective of a particular renderer, this tag isn't required. As the definition of 'boundary' is to be a closed polygon, any renderer can use that tag to decide whether to infill. Could someone remind me how to amend instances of the 'ValueDescription' template so I can remove the area label from it? I've a vague memory it's stored in an external database somewhere. --DaveF63 (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what magic made that populate it, but I was able to simply override "combination" in the ValueDescription template and that seems to have solved the problem. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

inholdings

This might not be the best place to bring this up, but.... There seems to have been a consensus to deprecate this tag for US National Parks, and instead use boundary=protected_area, protect_class=2, protected=perpetuity, and protection_title=National Park.

This comes into conflict with reality, when attempting to map these at a more detailed level. Maps generally depict the boundary of National Parks as the "proclamation boundary"... this is the area where Congress has, by law, authorized the NPS to acquire land, and add it to the national park. Such a proclamation does not erase the actual private ownership of land it includes... the areas which are inside the proclamation boundary, but not owned by the National Park Service are referred to as "inholdings" and are not protected areas... they are in fact private property, and generally not open to the public, despite being "inside" the National Park.

I've edited the boundaries of "Congaree National Park", using public domain GIS data from the NPS Datastore (https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2299943) to reflect this. In doing so, I've kept the existing relation for the park 12627729 12627729 for the outer "proclamation" boundary, with the tag boundary=national_park, with the name and metadata tags (operator, wikipedia, etc). I then created a second relation 16486568 16486568. with the "protected area" tags, that includes only the areas that are actually owned by the NPS and actually protected (as can be seen on satellite imagery, the inholdings are clearly not protected, some have been clearcut).

This second "protected area" relation has multiple areas, and is not contiguous. This is because a substantial section of the park is actually the "Congaree National Park Wilderness" 1215492075 1215492075, which has a higher protect_class (1b) than that which applies to the rest of the park. Revent (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd note that, from looking at locations like https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/33.83780/-80.86156 that the renderer seems to handle this tagging in a reasonable manner, despite JOSM complaining about the "national park" relation overlapping the smaller areas. Revent (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)