Significant parts of a local county park are actually owned by the adjacent cemetery, and a few smaller pieces are privately owned. Apart from a recently-sprouted "for sale" sign, there's no obvious indication that it isn't all county parkland, though there are some subtle ones (eg. trails in the cemetery-owned part are maintained wide enough to drive on, where park-owned trails are only footpath-wide).

Should I map the de-facto boundaries, or the de-jure boundaries?

asked 07 May '16, 05:33

Carnildo's gravatar image

Carnildo
711212441
accept rate: 50%


I always try to mark the boundaries of individually owned or operated parts if info available. The park is likely to have boundary=protected area or leisure=park or other as appropriate. On the cemetery land and private land you can add land cover tags to the parts that are similar to the county park.

permanent link

answered 07 May '16, 14:03

nevw's gravatar image

nevw
8.5k2584152
accept rate: 9%

I would add both, and tag a de-jure polygon as access=permissive.

permanent link

answered 09 May '16, 13:50

fooquency's gravatar image

fooquency
765610
accept rate: 0%

Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×101

question asked: 07 May '16, 05:33

question was seen: 1,265 times

last updated: 09 May '16, 13:50

powered by OSQA