Should we merge multiple directly adjacent polygons tagged as nature reserves (part of the same general area)?

Say you have a natural area, that users generally regard as one “place” (e.g., there’s hiking trail’s throughout and/or there’s no discernable borders when you navigate around), but on OSM it is represented as several parcels (tags landuse: conservation and leisure: nature_reserve) because they have different property ownership. I’ve included links to two polygons that are adjacent as examples:

In the area of these polygons are a series of natural areas owned by the local town, the state department of Fish and Game, and the US Department of the Interior. The OSM polygons have useful meta-data, of course about ownership, but also about when the areas were protected, maybe websites to the relevant land managers. From a user perspective, the protected area (solid green outline) is just a helpful indicator of where to hike (following trails, etc.), but the multiple names for each polygon showing up seems distracting and unhelpful (in addition to the jigsaw puzzle of protected area boundaries crossing the map). What would be the best approach for this area, to create something “cleaner” looking from a user standpoint. Is there a responsibility to preserve the meta-data on parcel ownership if multiple stakeholders are contributing to the conservation of this [largely contiguous] natural area?

11 posts - 5 participants

Read full topic


Ce sujet de discussion accompagne la publication sur https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/should-we-merge-multiple-directly-adjacent-polygons-tagged-as-nature-reserves-part-of-the-same-general-area/5288