Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

How much consensus IS there for tagging national_park on "large, (important?) 
state parks" which roughly (or not) meet the national_park definition in our 
wiki?

We have two in New York, quite a few in California, some in other states.  Do 
we wish to keep these as they are?  Do we rough out "rules" of when it is 
appropriate to use this tag?  I might be wrong about this, but it does seem 
that geographic size (sheer area) does play an important role in whether we 
might say "yes" or "no."  "How big" is that threshold?  (If any).

I know:  this gets chewy quickly.  Park tagging is difficult when we put things 
into categories.  We now use four tags to contain a vast universe of parks and 
park-like things, MANY of which are quite different from one another.  Can we 
improve upon this or am I simply barking at a tree?

SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 2:43 PM OSM Volunteer stevea
 wrote:
> 1)  As states are as sovereign as the federal government (for purposes of 
> saying "what a park is around here"), the tag boundary=national_park has 
> rather widely been applied to state parks and state-park like lands.  (I know 
> Kevin Kenny has made a good case for why he uses this tag on certain New York 
> state "lands" of a certain sort.  And a lot of state parks in California and 
> other states get this tag.

More or less repeating my earlier argument:

I've applied this tag in exactly two instances: the 'blue line' that
surrounds the Adirondack and Catskill Parks. This line delineates the
portion of the state legally known as the Forest Preserve, and
enshrined in article XIV of the state constitution:
> The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the 
> forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest 
> lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any 
> corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed 
> or destroyed.

Note that this land is an entirely different kettle of fish from the
areas entitled 'State Park' in New York.

Article XIV confers a sui generis protection, being enshrined at the
constitutional level. Unlike any of the US National Parks, which could
be wiped out by a simple Act of Congress, altering the Forest Preserve
needs a constitutional amendment. The *easiest* way to pass such a
thing is a supermajority vote of both houses of the state legislature,
in two consecutive sessions (with a general election intervening),
followed by a majority in a popular referendum. A number of amendments
have been passed to Article XIV, but they've all been relatively
small-scale changes to the state's holdings, to allow for construction
and maintenance of highways, well fields, utility lines, and similar
facilities. Generally, the amendments that concede land have all been
accompanied by adding land of greater value elsewhere.

The Forest Preserve plays a similar role to a large National Park. The
Catskill Park is of a similar size to a medium National Park like
Joshua Tree; the Adirondack Park would be able to fit Yellowstone,
Everglades, Glacier, Grand Canyon and Yosemite, with room to spare.
LIke some of the National Parks, the state landholdings are complex,
with many inholdings and leaseholds where the state does not own the
land (but highly regulates its use, including in many instances
mandating recreational access when active logging is not in progress).

The definition that appears in the Wiki:
> A  national park is a relatively large area of land declared by a government 
> (just as boundary=administrative are declared/recognised by governments), to 
> be set aside for human recreation and enjoyment, as well as the protection of 
> the natural environment and/or cultural heritage of an area. This would 
> normally also come with restrictions on human activity, particularly 
> development, for the protection of wildlife and scenery. National parks are 
> often named "X national park" (with translation).

is apposite. If US 'National Parks' are 'relatively large', then these
two qualify. The Adirondack Park is larger than any except for the
Alaska mega-parks; the Catskill Park is about of a size with Joshua
Tree or Yosemite.  They are set aside for the purposes mentioned in
the Wiki article. They come with stringent restrictions on
development. They simply are not administered by the Federal
government, because they were established in 1885, thirty-one years
before the National Park Service was established. The only National
Parks in existence were Yellowstone (Wyoming was not yet a state),
Mackinac (turned back to the State of Michigan in 1895), and Rock
Creek (an urban park in the DIstrict of Columbia, and so likewise
outside any state). Yosemite and Sequoia were in existence, as
California state parks.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

Oops, I meant landuse=recreation_ground.  (Not landuse=recreation_area).  My 
apologies.
SteveA

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

James Umbanhowar  wrote:
> Just to throw another curveball in here, there is also
> leisure=nature_reserve which is frequently (occasionally?) used for the
> city/county parks that are less structured and used for hiking and
> nature appreciation.

Thanks, James.  Reiterating, when I say "Existing 4," (as "tags we use on 
park-like things"), I mean:

leisure=park
leisure=nature_reserve
boundary=national_park
boundary=protected_area

Number "4-1/2" (or a 5th) might be landuse=recreation_area, which sometimes, 
even according to its wiki, conflates with leisure=park.  But use 
landuse=recreation_area when appropriate, of course.

I hear (loud and clear) the unfortunate-ness of boundary=national_park.  I know 
an easy go-to fix might be "how about we Americans coin the boundary=state_park 
tag...".  Two things about that which I hope are enlightening.

1)  As states are as sovereign as the federal government (for purposes of 
saying "what a park is around here"), the tag boundary=national_park has rather 
widely been applied to state parks and state-park like lands.  (I know Kevin 
Kenny has made a good case for why he uses this tag on certain New York state 
"lands" of a certain sort.  And a lot of state parks in California and other 
states get this tag.

2)  Once we go down the road of state_park as a value on boundary, we'll begin 
to tag (if we already haven't, I could check taginfo) county_park, city_park, 
maybe even private_park and other oddities which "break" a strict hierarchy of 
government administration.  (My psuedo/proto-protosal of a park_level=* tag, 
with values that mimic admin_level goes here, but that's an aside).  We have 
sort of tried this with the park:type tag (noted in the Subject), and that has 
been so wide-open (since at least 2009) that it didn't even have a wiki page 
about it until I sketched in a loose one late last week.  (I'm dancing as fast 
as I can).  The park:type tag is a mess, and in my opinion should enter early 
stages of deprecation right now as I believe it is too free-form and confusing. 
 I mean, I'm all for coining tags and plastic values, but this one seems to 
have simply become overly messy.

Perhaps new tags (in addition to the Existing 4 or 5) are in order, so that we 
may better address the "unfortunateness" of boundary=national_park.  But it 
would have to be a quite-well-thought-out proposal, might NEED to include the 
concept of park_level (which can be supplemented by operator=* and/or owner=* 
tags), and should scale to the whole world of OSM, rather than be USA-specific. 
 I'm pretty sure, anyway.  Or maybe we don't need any new tags (maybe values?) 
and we simply need good "rules" (rough logical mappings, maybe tightened up 
over time, or state-by-state) to apply the Existing 4 or 5 that mappers in the 
USA agree are crystal-clear, if that's possible.

SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 18:35 Greg Troxel  wrote:

> I think the entire "national_park" tag is unfortunate, as it wraps up a
> lot of concepts that vary by country, and makes people understand things
> when they don't.  In the US, it should mean "preserve the land while
> allowing access and enjoyment", there is a notion that the place is
> relatively distinguished, and it doesn't really have a connotation of
> size.
>

I agree, the national_park tag is rather unfortunate, some other tag should
be used to connote state or national parks in an easily distinguishable
fashion while not making it excessively difficult to find parks in
general.  With the existing national park tag, I'd use it for national (US
and indian tribal), but not state parks.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[James Umbanhowar]

Just to throw another curveball in here, there is also
leisure=nature_reserve which is frequently (occasionally?) used for the
city/county parks that are less structured and used for hiking and
nature appreciation.

On Sun, 2019-04-28 at 08:48 -0500, Aaron Forsythe wrote:
> On 4/26/2019 9:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
> >> Other than that I can't think of any tags that would be applicable
> to
> >> these sorts of situations. We tend to tag the regulations
> themselves,
> >> not the extent to which they're adhered to. Certainly just calling
> it a
> >> park because kids play there doesn't seem consistent with OSM
> standards.
> >> We don't raise the speed limit in places where everyone speeds, or
> tag
> >> bicycle=yes on ways where they're prohibited but frequently used.
> > 
> > 
> > No, I think leisure=playground aligns a bit more closely with "kids
> play
> > here," though some people like snap-tight definitions, others
> consider
> > things as much more elastic.  It's difficult to please everybody;
> semantics
> > can be messy.
>  
> I disagree.  Going by that definition, my front yard would be
> leisure:playground.  I believe the tag should be used for "a place
> designated
> as an area for children to play".  Also, just because someone puts a
> swing set
> in their back yard, shouldn't mean their back yard should be tagged
> as a
> playground.
>  
> On another note, there are places defined as “city parks” here that
> are no
> more than land that can't really be used for anything.  For instance,
> a lot in
> a subdivision that’s used for storm drainage is labeled as a nature
> park. 
> It's due to the fact they planted native plants on the lot to attract
> wildlife.  You would not know it's a "park" if you didn't read the
> small sign
> stating so.  It just looks like an overgrown, unleveled lot.
>  
> Aaron Forsythe
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

On Apr 28, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Josh Lee  wrote:
> Where is the consensus or vote? The wiki page says "Status: de facto"
> which implies that the wiki page should document *actual usage* and
> not some sort of idealist, narrow viewpoint.

Perhaps this is where I throw up my hands in exasperation.  Without 
exhaustively describing the threads, private missives, backchannel email 
discussions, hair-pulling exercises, now-stale imports (from when we had no 
Import Guidelines) and even flame-wars in the map (one in my area that has been 
a raging brush fire for a couple of weeks is now in 
truce/detente/notes-are-getting-resolved mode), "the consensus" has been 
evolving for the almost-decade I've been mapping here.

This talk-us thread is intended to address what US tagging of leisure=park 
"should better be" going forward, recognizing there is plenty of "legacy 
tagging" usage of leisure=park, often in California.  Some 
not-strictly-what-the-wiki-says and how leisure=park IS understood "around the 
OSM world" is certainly found in the US beyond California, that is quite true.  
So this topic isn't a fresh, clean sheet of paper, as much has been said and 
written.  But much confusion/misunderstanding (and legacy tagging) exists 
across the USA.

I agree that what our leisure=park wiki says, while it has been tightening up 
recently, isn't absolutely "actual usage," that isn't my fault, it is what 
thousands of contributors have tagged.  And as I've said, my inclinations as to 
why this is so is because our leisure=park wiki wasn't strictly accurate (until 
recent attempts to make it accurate) likely combined with the American English 
usage of the word "park" to be more inclusive (of park-like areas often with 
"park" in their name) than the original OSM concept/usage of leisure=park, 
which we now better wiki-document than we did before.

So, we now have better wiki (which feels fragile, as it is a new consensus, 
though it does appear to be "what we meant all along") AND we have 
legacy-tagging usage in the USA.  Rather than asking for an audit trail of how 
we got here, may we look ahead to how we'll "better" tag areas (with the 
Existing 4 tags, not just leisure=park) going forward?

I think we have "wrung out" (as largely irrelevant) the "government-level" 
semantic component as being unimportant (or we capture it with operator=* 
and/or owner=* tags), although using the specific example in the USA of "how do 
we tag a county park?" roughly asks this ticklish question — not because of 
"county" or that it is admin_level=6, but because county parks are often 
more-rural, larger, not-as-manicured "things" that we often call parks and 
which don't strictly meet how OSM means "leisure=park."

So, what emerges is that going forward, leisure=park is as our wiki describes 
it (a smaller, urban-scale, human-sculpted place for leisure/recreation), EVEN 
THOUGH many areas which aren't this are now tagged this way.  Going forward, 
NEW "parks" (in the USA) get this tag only as it is meant/now wiki-described, 
as we use the Existing 4 more properly.  In other words, it is correct to use 
the Existing 4 INSTEAD of solely leisure=park when appropriate.  
Simultaneously, it is inevitable that many now-tagged-leisure=parks will have 
that tag changed to one of the other Existing 4.  Yes?

Onward,
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Josh Lee]

On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 12:10 PM OSM Volunteer stevea
 wrote:

> Does OSM tag these leisure=park?  "We" (the people, the Departments of 
> Parks...) do, yet should we in OSM?  This IS talk-us; a major reason I 
> brought this up here is that USA park tagging drifts from elsewhere as "more 
> generous with the tag."  Yet the tag has recently become more precise, 
> narrowing it from how it is often used in the USA.

If the wiki history
 is to be
believed, it looks like one editor besides yourself has unilaterally
decided to change the wiki page to refer to something which is not how
the tag is actually used.

Where is the consensus or vote? The wiki page says "Status: de facto"
which implies that the wiki page should document *actual usage* and
not some sort of idealist, narrow viewpoint.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

> Jmapb  wrote:
> ...if I saw a playground on a map
> and then arrived there and found it was just an empty lot or an
> undeveloped bit of land, I would find fault with that map. So if these
> places (kids play here but it's unofficial) are to be mapped, I'd
> suggest different tagging.

I would find fault with that map, too.  Our leisure=playground clearly states 
"Often they provide equipment..." but maybe "often" could be better stated 
"nearly always."  That's my experience, though I hesitate to re-write the wiki. 
 Full disclosure, I did just propose on leisure=playground's Talk page that we 
add two simple words, "and schools" to describe areas where playgrounds are 
found, as lots of schools micro-map their campus as an OSM introduction.  
Giving a wiki-nod to playgrounds explicitly being found at schools seems 
welcoming.

> If recreation really is the primary human activity in these areas, you
> might consider landuse=recreation_ground -- though the way I read the
> wiki, it sounds like the intended use is a little more formal than the
> situations you're describing.

Yes, I considered recreation_ground as making the "Existing 4" actually 5.  
However, recreation_ground's wiki has a note in the See Also section that says 
"in many cases area is both recreation ground and a park. In such cases usual 
tagging is to add just leisure=park."  So while recreation_ground is a specific 
tag for specific uses, there are conflations to park which are both appropriate 
and recognized in the wiki.  So we sort of have "Existing 4-1/2."  There are no 
quick and easy ways to neatly put everything into buckets!


Aaron Forsythe  wrote:
...that he disagrees with my interpretation (not strict definition) of "kids 
play here."  To be clear, I am 100% in agreement with our wiki definition of 
playground as "a children's playground. These are outdoor (sometimes indoor) 
areas for children to play...".  The wiki definition's second sentence aligns 
with my interpretation/characterization, but it is not a definition of (only) 
what is included in the set, it is an elastic "these are also included" 
characterization of the set.  As I said, semantics can be tricky.

Aaron also wrote:
> On another note, there are places defined as “city parks” here that are no 
> more than land that can't really be used for anything.  For instance, a lot 
> in a subdivision that’s used for storm drainage is labeled as a nature park.  
> It's due to the fact they planted native plants on the lot to attract 
> wildlife.  You would not know it's a "park" if you didn't read the small sign 
> stating so.  It just looks like an overgrown, unleveled lot.

I've also noticed that land next to creeks, for drainage, which is too steep to 
build on, which sometimes floods...is frequently included in what 
municipalities/park agencies "call" parks, or manage as what might someday 
become a park (the "proto_park" concept I mentioned).  I've also seen 
"walkways" which are little more than a path next to a drainage (which does 
contain/attract native plants, frogs, birds), yet might be as little as ten 
feet wide but go on for hundreds of feet, and this is called a "park."

Does OSM tag these leisure=park?  "We" (the people, the Departments of 
Parks...) do, yet should we in OSM?  This IS talk-us; a major reason I brought 
this up here is that USA park tagging drifts from elsewhere as "more generous 
with the tag."  Yet the tag has recently become more precise, narrowing it from 
how it is often used in the USA.

Thanks to all who contribute to the discussion,
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[Aaron Forsythe]

On 4/26/2019 9:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
>> Other than that I can't think of any tags that would be applicable to
>> these sorts of situations. We tend to tag the regulations themselves,
>> not the extent to which they're adhered to. Certainly just calling it a
>> park because kids play there doesn't seem consistent with OSM standards.
>> We don't raise the speed limit in places where everyone speeds, or tag
>> bicycle=yes on ways where they're prohibited but frequently used.
>
>
> No, I think leisure=playground aligns a bit more closely with "kids play 
> here," though some people like snap-tight definitions, others consider 
> things as much more elastic.  It's difficult to please everybody; semantics 
> can be messy.

I disagree.  Going by that definition, my front yard would be 
leisure:playground.  I believe the tag should be used for "a place designated 
as an area for children to play".  Also, just because someone puts a swing set 
in their back yard, shouldn't mean their back yard should be tagged as a 
playground.

On another note, there are places defined as “city parks” here that are no 
more than land that can't really be used for anything.  For instance, a lot in 
a subdivision that’s used for storm drainage is labeled as a nature park.  
It's due to the fact they planted native plants on the lot to attract 
wildlife.  You would not know it's a "park" if you didn't read the small sign 
stating so.  It just looks like an overgrown, unleveled lot.

Aaron Forsythe
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us