Show natural park

[Phyks]

We should show regional / departemental / natural parks as it is done on osm.org: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/48.243/5.482.

[Florimondable]

Should be close, it has been done.

[Phyks]

Yes and no, we lack the names and they are not that much visible.

[Florimondable]

Within forest they are not very visible, in land it's ok. It's no the most important thing to show in a bicycle map ;)

[Phyks]

Depends, it can have some implications on local rules (especially for gravel or camping) for instance.

[quasart]

Hello,
I agree it would be useful for people who want to cycle in nature. To my mind it's more important than small cities names to navigate at low zoom.

[Florimondable]

The render of natural park darken the map look here https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=12/49.7986/4.2943/cyclosm
That's not very nice :/

[rem-maps]

I am new to cyclosm and I like it a lot
I find natural parks border too heavy on the map. Dashed green is very similar to dashed blue (especially for colour blind people) so very often an invisible border looks like a path.
In my opinion cyclosm focus must be totally on paths/roads that can be cycled - border of national park is an accessory info that can be useful to a few people but misleading for a lot more people.

I suggest a lighter color for the border - or just a background of the area without (or with very faint) border

We have examples everywhere of problems with this heavy border

For instance:

1. near Milan we have a very large (with complex border) rural park (Parco Agricolo Sud) and cyclosm becomes a mess there
   

2. in the Netherlands for Eemmeer & Gooimeer Zuidoever
   where you can think there's a bridge where there's not
   

[Florimondable]

Hi @rem-maps I agree, I'm don't like much the protective area border area.
I created a ticket from your comment #396

[Phyks]

@rem-maps thanks a lot for the very detailed report with map captures and details! :)