Yes, that's true, that's why I put it in to let people know that there is an officially designed place to stay there. I wanted to add a few more details but then did not get around to it. There is also a public toilet there, which is obviously quite convenient, but I think it's already mapped.

Max

See for example:

http://medias.tourisme-ouestvar.com/documents/Aire_de_stationnement_camping_cars.pdf

https://www.golfe-saint-tropez-information.com/fr/hebergement/aire-de-camping-car/la-garde-freinet/stationnement-de-camping-car/4188

That's true, I remeber that it was not really signposted that well/at all (not helped by the fact that they seem to use several different names for that newly built parking...). I found it in an official overview by the departement Var of parkings designated by the local authorities for camping overnight. I'll dig out the document and post the link here!

Oh sorry, that name must have slipped in somhow, did not mean to place a name there. Thanks for spotting, I'll fix it.

Just a tack that I forgot to tag from bing satellite image when I mapped some stuff in the area earlier this year. Fixed it, thanks for spotting it!

Hab nochmal die Sachen durchgelesen, die ich dazu gefunden hatte und stimmt, wahrscheinlich ging es jeweils nur um den oeffentlichen vorderen Teil der Bahn, habe mich verwirren lassen durch die verschiedenen Bezeichnungen fuer "obere" und "untere" Bahn, je nach dem was man betrachtet (Bergbahn oder Schmalspurbahn). Ich habe den hinteren teil wieder in railway=narrow_gauge und usage=industrial geaendert, danke fuer deine Achtsamkeit und den Versuch, da an weiter informationen zu kommen.

Hi Valentin,

is there any particular reason why you mapped the entire riverbank as barrier=hedge? There is definitely parts of the river where that is the case, i.e. meadows or field directly bordering the river, as far as I can see it from Satellite image...

Cheers,
Max

Well, first of all I don't get the generally unfriendly tone in your comment, but whatever,. The course of the Railway is following the 1937-1966 OS Maps, and there I can't see any houses older houses that would be crosses, but feel free to adapt it based on your better local knowledge. For the amendments to the cycleway, I think I might have adapted the couse of it according to Bing aerial images, if you could let me know which bit is wrong now, or just edit it.

Thanks, great. Well then even more reason to decouple those boundaries from the acutal landuse/natural features. Quite a lot of really werid ones especially in Northern California. But of course that will be a huge task in such a big country compared to what we are used to over here in Europe!

Well, then just go ahead reverting that! I know that things like National Park borders can sometimes be some cmplicated matter and also sth that wll be simplified for a overview map. It will probably make sense to sperate the landuse and park borders for all these then it will seem less weird from just looking at the map

Hi both of you and sorry for the late reply. If you are the experts on those National Park borders, feel free to fix whatever is wrong now. As far as I remember I was mainly irritated by some kind of checkerboard structure in the borders of the Forests that I could not find in any other maps of them, including the ones on the USDA homepage (Alhough true that these kind of features are present in the arggis shapefiles.) And maybe I have broken something else while doing that. So if I was wrong there and you are sure that all the features visible before were actually the true borders and not some kind of artefact of imported data, I would be really happy if you could fix that. Cheers,
Max