I don’t think it’s working, though -
you’re right that the new UNESCO Geopark more-or-less comprises three existing ‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ (AONBs) - but only the bits of the AONBs wwithin the Newry, Mourne & Down local government district.
The Strangford AONB straddles two local government districts, and only the Newry, Mourne & Down portion is within the new UNESCO Geopark…
so whilst nearly all of the Geopark boundary is tagged on the same ways as the AONBs, this one here - Way: 1175924514 | OpenStreetMap - is a new boundary. And I don’t see it rendering anywhere
(OpenStreetMap wiki says the ‘protect_class’ tag for a UNESCO Global Geopark should be ‘98’, but it also merrily says that doesn’t render on any current agent, and that’s been the case for over a decade, so I just used the ‘national park’ class instead… but it’s still not rendering!)
Please: let’s not worry about what renders: “simply” tag accurately in the map. If someplace is a boundary=protected_area, and this certainly appears to be, tag it that way and “be done.” If an additional tag like protect_class=*truly applies, please use these carefully, as our wiki has been updated in the last few years to include specifically IUCN areas with these. If you don’t know what IUCN is, then please, don’t use the protect_class=* tag, especially if you know this will make Carto render and that’s why you are doing it. That would be distinctly tagging for the renderer. Or, if FOR SURE if this area truly has “IUCN applicability” which should be truly denoted in OSM, then by all means, go ahead and add the correct protect_class=* tag.
There are a great many values of protect_class=* which are deprecated, as numerical values now have wide(r) consensus that plain-language tags are better, so a slow migration towards those has been underway for years. The value of 98 happens to be a “supported” value, but that means two things (in the specific case of value 98): #1, eventually, this will get changed to a plain-language tag (like unesco_global_geopark), and #2, it doesn’t render (in Carto). You don’t like #2? Tough. (For now). Otherwise, talk to the Carto people and continue the conversation with them about this (which they are not anxious to continue).
TL;DR: If you know it is a “protected area,” tag it with boundary=protected_area. (Easy). And see Key:protect_class - OpenStreetMap Wiki to tell you whether that key is appropriate. It ISN’T appropriate if you simply are adding this to render, which is just plain wrong, so don’t do that.
OSM is a map database, not rendered products based on those data. Don’t tag for renderers. The (multi)polygon in our database suffices (as cake). Rendering just as you like it is icing on cake: nice, but not necessary.
One problem with the multipolygon as it stands is that it’s not closed. I’ve loaded it in JOSM, pressed the “validate” button and it looks like there are some gaps. Take this way for example. It’s part of the Mourne AONB, but not the new one. For comparison, the adjacent way is part of both.
The tagging mostly matches some GB National Parks so I suspect most renderers will treat it as a national park.
Edit: just to be clear there are about 6 gaps in total I think?
If it is a de facto or especially a de jure (in GB) “national park,” then I think OSM is OK with adding a protect_class=2 tag. If not, but it IS a “UNESCO Global Geopark” (and it certainly appears to be such a thing), then add protect_class=98 and know two things: this will not render in Carto, and it will be correctly entered into OSM. You don’t like that it doesn’t render? Tough. You are “doing the right thing” by tagging it correctly.
“An unclosed (multi)polygon will not render, nor should it” - yes I know, hence me posting looking for help in debugging it - I suspected I’d missed a bit somewhere, but I couldn’t find it!
As regards ‘not tagging for the renderer’ - I know that… (although tbf, that’s not quite the same as taking a tagging scheme you read on OSM Wiki as gospel - there’s loads of out-of-date stuff on there, where people dreampt up some tags a dozen years ago but hardly anyone used or supported them)
It’s not a National park because the status is awarded by UNESCO, not a national government, although it sounds like this one consists of 3 AONBs the boundaries of which are set by government. From reading the wiki page it sounds more like a protect_class=98, but to be honest the use of protect_class=5 for National Parks in GB has always struck me as a bit odd
There are more gaps than the original 11.2 meters I found, several in fact. Hang on, I’m working on it.
Furthermore, I’ve been rather involved with many people (both in my country, USA, as well as around the world both in wiki and in one-on-one email conversations) about this very topic, including this very same debate (and related ones). It is in “slow flux,” and conversations like this are actually helpful. It’s slow going, but it is going.
It’s a new UNESCO Global Geopark (UGGp).
OSM Wiki’s blurb on the ‘protect_class’ tag says UGGp’s should be “protect_class=98”, but I’m wondering how many of the 195 UGGp’s on planet Earth are currently tagged in that way?
It’s not yet a ‘National Park’ in the UK legal sense, (although it has been put forward to be designated as one, it may yet come to pass)
Changeset/136765902 now makes this a properly constructed type=boundary relation: The “gaps” were closed, so this is now a fully “closed polygon” as OSM defines this. The area=yes tag was deleted (as incorrect). The protect_class=5 tag was changed (as incorrect) to a protect_class=98 tag, as Andy’s and @ramthelinefeed 's comments make it clear this is correct tagging. This means it will not render in Carto. However, I believe this is now much more properly entered into OSM. If and when GB declares this as a de jure National Park, feel free to change the protect_class=98 tag to a protect_class=2 tag, and then Carto WILL render it.
Yet to be done: * ‘wikipedia:en’ tag is set, but no ‘wikipedia’ tag. Make sure to set ‘wikipedia=language:value’ for the main article and optional ‘wikipedia:language=value’ only for additional articles that are not just other language variants of the main article.
For completeness, now that that is closed that does load into the database behind map.atownsend.org.uk:
gis=> select osm_id,name from planet_osm_polygon where osm_id = -15904145;
osm_id | name
-----------+-------------------------------------------------
-15904145 | Mourne Gullion Strangford UNESCO Global Geopark
(1 row)
(although it currently isn’t rendered there for the reasons mentioned above)
Out of interest, I ran an overpass turbo query for 'protect_class=98 and it pulled about 30 or 40 items.
There’s nearly 200 UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGp’s) in the real world.
But I don’t know how many UGGp’s simply aren’t on OSM in the first place, never mind tagged as protect_class 98. (Also, class 98 includes other things besides UGGp’s).
)
- I suspected I’d missed a bit somewhere, but I couldn’t find it!
