Re: [Talk-us] Someone from Boston, MA?

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:12 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:01 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> > I'm not a Bostonian, but I've been to Copley Place.
> > Copley Place is a named building: 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240501783

This local Bostonian concurs.

This is one of those skyscrapers with a vanity "street" address with
no such street.
(To confuse matters further, there is also a Copley Place Hotel whose
address is NOT Copley Place!)

> more information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copley_Place - the
> building complex, in addition to the shopping mall, has office
> buildings (tenants include the German and Canadian consulates, on the
> fourth and fifth floors respectively of tower 3), hotels and a parking
> garage, all connected.

(and all-weather connections to adjacent malls and hotels too, and to
two T (metro) lines and Amtrak rail.)
(used to have a Cinema, but iirc it got consolidated out of existence?)

> I'm not familiar enough with indoor mapping to be able to direct you
> how to map a suite within the towers.

A Consulate might prefer we not map the interior access?
That level of detail is fine for retail but ... government entities
can attract untoward attention.

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

Re: [Talk-us] Someone from Boston, MA?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:01 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> I'm not a Bostonian, but I've been to Copley Place.
> Copley Place is a named building: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240501783

more information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copley_Place - the
building complex, in addition to the shopping mall, has office
buildings (tenants include the German and Canadian consulates, on the
fourth and fifth floors respectively of tower 3), hotels and a parking
garage, all connected.

There's a detailed plan of the first few levels at
https://www.simon.com/mall/copley-place/map#/ - the menu at upper
right will let you select the levels, and the entrances to the towers
are on 'Sky Level'.

I'm not familiar enough with indoor mapping to be able to direct you
how to map a suite within the towers.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Someone from Boston, MA?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:40 PM Wolfgang Zenker
 wrote:
> I tried to add the German Consulate General in Boston, MA, but could not
> find the address "Three Copley Place, Boston, MA 02116" in
> our data. That place is apparently somewhere near Boston University.
> Anyone local who could check if this is a missing street name in our
> data?
>
> consulate website: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240501783

I'm not a Bostonian, but I've been to Copley Place.
Copley Place is a named building: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240501783

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

[Talk-us] Someone from Boston, MA?

[Wolfgang Zenker]

Hi,

I tried to add the German Consulate General in Boston, MA, but could not
find the address "Three Copley Place, Boston, MA 02116" in
our data. That place is apparently somewhere near Boston University.
Anyone local who could check if this is a missing street name in our
data?

consulate website: https://www.germany.info/us-en/embassy-consulates/boston

Greetings,
Wolfgang
( lyx @ osm )

___
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

[Greg Troxel]

brad  writes:

>>> Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for
>>> recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?
>> Because we have existing norms, and it is not generally a good idea to
>> ask that tagging of thousands of objects be thrown out and redone.
> OK, but I think that's what you're asking for if county parks, state
> parks, and large city parks can't be tagged as parks.

If people in one country have mistagged things, then I think it's ok to
fix that.  I don't think it's ok to ask the rest of the world to change
to accomodate our mistagging.

The notion of what leisure=park means (that many "state parks" aren't
included) has been clear to me for years, from reading the wiki when I
joined OSM.

But I'm not really clear on the total statistics of use of leisure=park
in the US and not in the 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

[brad]

On 4/29/19 4:11 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:

brad  writes:


It seems that plain language can be used here, and from the Oxford
dictionary, a park is:

No.  Plain language cannot be used to define what tags mean.  Each tag
is actually a codepoint, not human language, and needs a definition.
That is fundamental to how tagging works in OSM.
Agreed, but the tag language should be close to human language where 
possible



Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for
recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?

Because we have existing norms, and it is not generally a good idea to
ask that tagging of thousands of objects be thrown out and redone.
OK, but I think that's what you're asking for if county parks, state 
parks, and large city parks can't be tagged as 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

[Greg Troxel]

Andy Townsend  writes:

> With regard to British English usage, I think you're
> correct*. Something described here as a "park" would pretty much match
> the current description at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark (without the
> urban requirement, but you've already talked about that).  In the UK a
> "national park" (or something like the Pentland Hills Regional Park
> which was already mentioned) isn't really a subset of "park" in any
> way - it's something else altogether.

So it seems that the definition of leisure=park we have converged on in
the US matches more or less leisure=park and what humans mean when
speaking en_UK.  That seems like a very sane place to be.

___
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

[Greg Troxel]

Joseph Eisenberg  writes:

> On 4/29/19, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
>> With leisure=nature_reserve, leisure=park, golf courses, cemetaries,
>> schools, etc., we represent them on the map by some kind of shading or
>> fill.  But, boundary=protected_area is represented by denoting the
>> border, and this does not serve map users well.
>
> If you are talking about the Openstreetmap-carto style (the standard
> map layer on openstreetmap.org), then this is not quite correct.
>
> It's true that leisure=park and golf courses are represented by a fill
> color for the whole polygon.
>
> However, leisure=natural_reserve, boundary=national_park and
> boundary_protected area (with protect_class  1 thru 7 and 97-99) are
> currently rendered identically, with a green semi-transparent outline.
> (There is also a semi-transparent green fill at low zoom levels).

Sorry, I was off on nature_reserve.   But my point is that we have fill
sometimes and sometimes not, and that focusing on thinking about
boundary seems to lead to not filling, and I think that's unfortunate.

It's at high zooms that I think the fill is needed; some of these are
large enough that zooming in means the border isn't showing.

> Military areas and tourist areas (zoos, theme parks) are also rendered
> with outlines in red and purple.

Military at least also has a fill pattern, so they are not just
observable from the edges.  I have no problem with special edges; my
complaint is the decision that no fill is necessary.

___
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

[Greg Troxel]

brad  writes:

> It seems that plain language can be used here, and from the Oxford
> dictionary, a park is:

No.  Plain language cannot be used to define what tags mean.  Each tag
is actually a codepoint, not human language, and needs a definition.
That is fundamental to how tagging works in OSM.

> Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for
> recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?

Because we have existing norms, and it is not generally a good idea to
ask that tagging of thousands of objects be thrown out and redone.

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

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

[brad]

Agreed, emphasis in Kevin's text is mine.
It looks like some of this redefinition of the park tag is new?   ie the 
human sculpted part, and the attempt to restrict the usage. Perhaps 
clarity is needed, but more narrowly defined than the Oxford dictionary, 
or common usage, is not needed.


On 4/29/19 12:38 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

oops, sent to wrong list
-- Forwarded message -
From: Kevin Kenny 
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:36 PM
Subject: Fwd: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type
To: OSM Tagging mailing list 


Using a British dictionary (Living Oxford Dictionary), the first
definition of 'park' is:

1 A large public garden or area of land used for recreation.
‘a walk round the park’
‘a country park’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/park

The 'or public garden' implies that the area *may* be human sculpted,
but there is no separate definition to encompass 'regional park'.
There is a separate entry for 'national park', and under 'park' there
are entries to cover the 'park' of a country house, a 'wildlife park',
'park' as another word for 'playground', 'park' as an informal word
for 'football pitch' (borrowed from the American usage) and the
Americanism 'sports park' - and then a second sense of any area
devoted to a specific purpose ('industrial park', 'office park'), plus
a third designating the 'park' position of the gear selector on an
automatic transmission.

I'm fine with 'leisure=park' being more specific, but we have to be 
very clear what we mean because it's more restrictive than even UK 
English (to say nothing of CANZUS, where 'park' for the large regional 
parks is surely common), and we have to expect mistagging, 
particularly in light of the fact that the rest of the 
English-speaking world has tagged a lot of parks with the looser 
language that used to be on the Wiki.


___
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

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

[Kevin Kenny]

oops, sent to wrong list
-- Forwarded message -
From: Kevin Kenny 
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:36 PM
Subject: Fwd: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type
To: OSM Tagging mailing list 


Using a British dictionary (Living Oxford Dictionary), the first
definition of 'park' is:

1 A large public garden or area of land used for recreation.
‘a walk round the park’
‘a country park’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/park

The 'or public garden' implies that the area *may* be human sculpted,
but there is no separate definition to encompass 'regional park'.
There is a separate entry for 'national park', and under 'park' there
are entries to cover the 'park' of a country house, a 'wildlife park',
'park' as another word for 'playground', 'park' as an informal word
for 'football pitch' (borrowed from the American usage) and the
Americanism 'sports park' - and then a second sense of any area
devoted to a specific purpose ('industrial park', 'office park'), plus
a third designating the 'park' position of the gear selector on an
automatic transmission.

I'm fine with 'leisure=park' being more specific, but we have to be
very clear what we mean because it's more restrictive than even UK
English (to say nothing of CANZUS, where 'park' for the large regional
parks is surely common), and we have to expect mistagging,
particularly in light of the fact that the rest of the
English-speaking world has tagged a lot of parks with the looser
language that used to be on the Wiki.

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

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

[Kevin Kenny]

oops, meant to send this to the list...

-- Forwarded message -
From: Kevin Kenny 
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type
To: Mateusz Konieczny 


On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:06 PM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
> It is supposed to be about both, I attempted to check both but I open to 
> discovering that I am mistaken.
> In case of British English I attempted to consult with people who are native 
> speakers of BE
> and people better in English than myself but maybe my questions/examples 
> failed to capture
> cases of what should be described park (and or leisure=park).

The earliest use of the word 'park' in English is attested to in the
13th Century - in which it means 'enclosed preserve for hunting.' The
great estates would maintain 'parks' that they would stock with beasts
of the chase.

The use of 'park' in its urban meaning entered the language some four
hundred years later, as London was being rebuilt after the Great
Plague and the Great Fire.  It began to sprawl, and tracts of land
were reserved to be kept in a quasi-natural state, or at least
protected from urban development, for public recreation. The name
extended in this way partly because the laws that had established
royal hunting preserves were repurposed to protect land in this way.
Civic pride made these parks highly sculpted, displaying an idealized
landscape, hence the urban use of the word 'park.'

'Park' in the sense of 'baseball park' - a sporting field - is an
Americanism dating to the 1860's.

'Car park' came from the fact that people visiting cities would use
the public parks as a place to leave their carriages, and later their
automobiles, and so 'parking' was born.

'Industrial park' and so on are 20th-century innovations, I suspect
from the advertising agencies and real estate agents.

> Neither of them is tagged leisure=park and it seems that
> "national park" is in some way similar to "business park" or "industrial park"
> - word park is in the name but it is not considered as a special case
> of "green human-sculpted landscape" that is commonly referred to as
> a "park".

'Park' in the sense of 'preserved natural land' (originally for
hunting, but the sense broadened as natural areas were preserved for
other purposes) and 'park' in the sense of 'sculpted, idealized
landscape' march hand in hand through the last 350 years or so, and
'preserved natural land' is the earlier sense of the word.

> This one is not surprising to me, it is probably result of compromise/conflict
> resulting in potected area with some objects that are contrary to any
> nature protection attempts.
> Poland has cases of legal large-scale active logging in Tatra mountains
> that is result of conflict between local people and desire to protect nature.
>
> See 
> https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wsp%C3%B3lnota_Le%C5%9Bna_Uprawnionych_O%C5%9Bmiu_Wsi
> - conflict dates back to creation of the Tatrzański Park Narodowy (=Tatra 
> National Park).
>
> See also motorways going sometimes through protected or "protected" areas.

One reason that the boundary lines in New York's big parks are such a
mess is that transportation and utility corridors, well fields,
cemeteries, and similar land uses are officially cut out of the
protected areas.
Much logging happens in the areas of lesser protection. They are
protected from development - the land owners can't build on them, or
are restricted to extremely low-density development - but sustainable
logging practices are permitted on many of the inholdings. In many
cases the timber companies also have easements against them requiring
public access when active logging is not in progress.

___
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]

I do think it important we hear about distinctions between British English (and 
how it had a defining influence on much tagging in OSM), and American English, 
which I often say distinctly affected the way Americans have used the 
leisure=park tag.  "Park" in American English is much more encompassing than 
"park" in British English AND leisure=park, and whether good or bad, this 
semantic sense of the word has blurred US tagging to be wide and wild.  OK, 
enough history.  (The problem may be worldwide in OSM, with the US having its 
own quirky reasons and tangles).  Then, there is what we might do going forward.

I am heartened to see so much earnest discussion.  Yet I feel the same way 
Mateusz does when he says while thinking loudly, he is not sure "what exactly 
should be done here."  Yes.

And this is not the first time similar discussion has happened.  A result is 
things mostly grind along as they have.  Or perhaps (as with the introduction 
of the boundary=protected_area, ostensibly created as a new scheme to solve 
many things), we get MORE complexity.  I wish I didn't sound so negative or 
like I'm sowing chaos — I'm not — genuinely, I would love to see clarity 
emerge, yet it seems elusive.  Though I'll say it again:  talk, talk and more 
talk, while tedious and even exhausting sometimes, seems it's better than not 
talking, as sometimes a kernel of better understanding shakes out.  I continue 
to hold out for that here.

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

[Andy Townsend]

On 29/04/2019 17:04, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:




29 Apr 2019, 17:36 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:24 AM Mateusz Konieczny
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:

Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for
recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with
additional tags?

That would require redefining leisure=park and while would
match use of word "park" in USA
it would start mismatching use of work "park" in UK. It would
also start to mismatch how
leisure=park is used in Europe.

Generally British English is preferred in OSM and redefining
popular tags is deeply problematic.


Are we talking about the use of the *tag*, or the use of the *word* in
British English?

It is supposed to be about both, I attempted to check both but I open 
to discovering that I am mistaken.
In case of British English I attempted to consult with people who are 
native speakers of BE
and people better in English than myself but maybe my 
questions/examples failed to capture

cases of what should be described park (and or leisure=park).

I know that it is possible, that is part of the reason why I posted 
quoted message (it would be embarassing
to discover that my claims were wrong but I prefer to discover as soon 
as possible).


With regard to British English usage, I think you're correct*. Something 
described here as a "park" would pretty much match the current 
description at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark 
(without the urban requirement, but you've already talked about that).  
In the UK a "national park" (or something like the Pentland Hills 
Regional Park which was already mentioned) isn't really a subset of 
"park" in any way - it's something else altogether.


National Parks such as Yellowstone were established in the US many years 
ago as pretty much their own thing - they're almost nothing like parks 
such as Derby Arboretum (arguably the first public park in Britain).  In 
concept Britain's "National Parks" owe more to the American National 
Parks than they do to earlier local parks.  There are significant 
differences in how they are managed and run, but the model was borrowed 
from the US.  The fact that the "Peak District National Park" has the 
word "park" in it does not make it a "park" in the normally understood 
sense.


Turning to things in the US, there's no way that I'd describe 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3003169/history ("Joseph D Grant 
County Park") as "more like" Derby Arboretum / Golden Gate Park than the 
Peak District National Park in England or Yosemite. Sure, it's a sliding 
scale, with most bits of Joseph D Grant significantly "less wild" than 
Yosemite, but my impression of it after having been there is "not really 
a park in the British English sense".


Obviously different communities worldwide stretch OSM tags to match 
local differences and important local distinctions that may not exist in 
the British English tag definitions (for example, apparently German 
gravel has a different name depending on whether it's sharp or rounded), 
and it's up to the US community to decide how to tag things in the US, 
but I'd suggest that substantially broadening the usage of a tag that 
means something else everywhere else is not the best approach.


Best Regards,

Andy

* for the benefit of anyone who may not know, I'm a native English 
(British) English speaker.


___
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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29 Apr 2019, 17:36 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:

> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:24 AM Mateusz Konieczny
> <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > wrote:
>
>> Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for recreation', 
>> a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?
>>
>> That would require redefining leisure=park and while would match use of word 
>> "park" in USA
>> it would start mismatching use of work "park" in UK. It would also start to 
>> mismatch how
>> leisure=park is used in Europe.
>>
>> Generally British English is preferred in OSM and redefining popular tags is 
>> deeply problematic.
>>
>
> Are we talking about the use of the *tag*, or the use of the *word* in
> British English?
>
It is supposed to be about both, I attempted to check both but I open to 
discovering that I am mistaken.
In case of British English I attempted to consult with people who are native 
speakers of BE 
and people better in English than myself but maybe my questions/examples failed 
to capture
cases of what should be described park (and or leisure=park).

I know that it is possible, that is part of the reason why I posted quoted 
message (it would be embarassing
to discover that my claims were wrong but I prefer to discover as soon as 
possible).

> If we're talking about the use of the word 'park' in common speech,
> the British Isles have ample examples of 'park' being used in a sense
> much like the US one: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/359617831 
> 
> happened to be the first one I noticed, but
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/421685070 
> >  and others are also
> present. If these aren't 'parks' in UK English, why do they exist in
> the UK with 'park' in their names?
>
Neither of them is tagged leisure=park and it seems that
"national park" is in some way similar to "business park" or "industrial park"
- word park is in the name but it is not considered as a special case
of "green human-sculpted landscape" that is commonly referred to as
a "park".

Note that I may be mistaken here, my check was quick sanity check of
a biased group of people not some scientific research

> I also notice that Great Britain has similar situations to the US
> national parks, where other land uses are embedded. I see that
> Cairngorms National Park
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1947603 
> >  embeds at least four
> villages (Avlemore, Ballater, Grantown-on-Spey and Kingussie).
>
This one is not surprising to me, it is probably result of compromise/conflict
resulting in potected area with some objects that are contrary to any 
nature protection attempts.
Poland has cases of legal large-scale active logging in Tatra mountains 
that is result of conflict between local people and desire to protect nature.

See 
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wsp%C3%B3lnota_Le%C5%9Bna_Uprawnionych_O%C5%9Bmiu_Wsi
 

- conflict dates back to creation of the Tatrzański Park Narodowy (=Tatra 
National Park).

See also motorways going sometimes through protected or "protected" areas.
___
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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29 Apr 2019, 05:12 by stevea...@softworkers.com:

> 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?
>
It seems that national_park is likely to be affected by problem similar to 
leisure=park.
Many countries have things  called "national park" that are some form of nature 
protection
but details are very different.

Given that there is viable alternative that may be less ambiguous it may be 
preferable to
avoid national_park or at least be aware that meaning is likely to be strongly 
affected by regional
differences.

For example:
in Poland "national park" is basically "large/very large nature reserve that 
has stronger legal 
protections and is more famous". Some of them are tiny (probably comically tiny 
by USA standards)
like Ojcowski Park Narodowy ("Park Narodowy" directly translates into "Naional 
Park")
at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6247785#map=12/50.2054/19.8272 
 - 
covering 21 square km.

I am tempted to treat boundary=protected_area as preferable, despite that tags 
specifying exact type
are unreadable codes.

(I am loudly thinking here, and not sue what exactly should be done here)

___
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

[Greg Troxel]

Kevin Kenny  writes:

> The smaller state parks - the thousand-acre type that you contemplate
> - are often not what IUCN considers to be protected areas, and so I've
> taken to using protected_area tagging, but with protection classes
> such as 21 (which woud be accompanied with
> 'protection_object=recreation').  That doesn't render, so as a
> stopgap, I've been tagging them 'leisure=nature_reserve' or
> 'leisure=park', whichever seems to fit, recognizing that further
> developments are likely eventually to make the dual tagging
> unneccessary. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6442393 is
> typical.

I completely fail to understand why IUCN protection status has become
the main thing.  Whether something is functioning as a park now seems to
me to have nothing to do with long-term legal protection.   I am not
objecting to tagging the legal status.  I just don't see how denoting
legal status somehow removes the need to describe what is.

> What I struggle with is are more complex situations - that may always
> necessitate some 'abuse' of tagging. The thousand-acre park with a
> forty-acre developed section is handled quite nicely with your scheme.
> When you have a 'park' comprising hundreds of thousands, or millions
> of acres, operated in public-private partnership, things start to
> break down. This is true of New York's two huge parks; of the USA's
> larger National Parks; and of US National Monuments, National Forests,
> and BLM recreation lands. The outer ring - the legally designated area
> - may not really enclose anything recognizable as a 'park', while the
> stricter 'park' land management may be somewhat diffuse, in many
> discrete protected areas. The larger area is also protected, but
> limited sustainable development is often permitted.

Agreed this is messy.  I meant merely to broach the notion of tagging
usage in sub-parts separately from tagging the name of the entity on the
large object.

> Looking at the IUCN definitions, the only class that fits these large
> parks is '2' - 'national park'. IUCN, like our Wiki, doesn't actually
> require that 'national park' be constituted by a national government.
> It simply embodies a hidden assumption that only a nation-state has
> the resources to constitute one. leaving the bigger state-defined
> facilities in terminologic limbo.

I would ask if it's really a good thing that OSM has adopted IUCN as the
basis for what is and is not a park.  It seems to me that it's causing
trouble.

> Another odd case that I've mapped a lot of are the undeveloped
> recreation areas owned by New York City to protect its water supply.
> The city bought them to protect them from development, and allows
> public access (in some cases requiring that the user apply for a free
> permit, in others, "come one, come all!") I've tagged these with
> boundary=protected_area protect_class=12 protection_object=water, and
> then added leisure=nature_reserve as a rendering stopgap (because
> class 12 doesn't render either).

We used to have "landuse=reservoir_protection" (although maybe these
places are watershed protection, not reservoir).  Part of what I object
to about the IUCN hegemony is the view that everything should be turned
into some complicated protect_class and other tagging removed.

But, in this case, your approach seems reasonable in terms of denoting
the landuse.

I would argue that if people are welcome, then in addition to whatever
protection tags, it deserves "leisure=nature_reserve" *also*.  There is
no reason to conclude from "water protection" that humans are or are not
allowed.  Near me, there is reservoir protection land, and it has "no
trespassing - public water supply" signs.  I think the protection
tagging ought to match your case (but maybe protection_object=reservoir
instead of =water), but also access=no and definitely no nature_reserve.

(I agree with your notion that free permit means access=yes to first
order.)

> One reason that I disfavour 'leisure=park' is, simply, the renderer.
> (I know, don't tag for the renderer!) The objects that render with
> borders (nature_reserve, national_park, protected_area for classes
> 1-6) don't obscure landcover, so those who wish to map landcover in
> these large areas can do so without collision. The only place where
> I've really tried to do that has been Bear Mountain - where I was
> producing a detailed map for a group outing a couple of years ago. I
> didn't push beyond the specific area that I needed.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6467468

There is a much larger issue in the standard style between landuse and
landcover, and not having an integrated vision for which is rendered
how, to avoid colliding.

Around me, golf courses have a color fill and nature_reserve doesn't,
and that has always seemed broken.

___
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 Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:24 AM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
> Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for recreation', a 
> park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?
>
> That would require redefining leisure=park and while would match use of word 
> "park" in USA
> it would start mismatching use of work "park" in UK. It would also start to 
> mismatch how
> leisure=park is used in Europe.
>
> Generally British English is preferred in OSM and redefining popular tags is 
> deeply problematic.

Are we talking about the use of the *tag*, or the use of the *word* in
British English?

If we're talking about the use of the tag, then we get to define it,
but if it is too far removed from a word's commonly understood
meaning, we have to expect extensive mistagging.

If we're talking about the use of the word 'park' in common speech,
the British Isles have ample examples of 'park' being used in a sense
much like the US one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/359617831
happened to be the first one I noticed, but
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/421685070 and others are also
present. If these aren't 'parks' in UK English, why do they exist in
the UK with 'park' in their names?

I also notice that Great Britain has similar situations to the US
national parks, where other land uses are embedded. I see that
Cairngorms National Park
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1947603 embeds at least four
villages (Avlemore, Ballater, Grantown-on-Spey and Kingussie).

___
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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Sorry for a previous empty message. I clicked send too early by an accident.

29 Apr 2019, 15:02 by g...@lexort.com:

> So, I'd be in favor of having a way on the parcel boundary, and another
> denoting the park-type sub-piece, calling those outer and inner and
> tagging:
>
>  outer: name="Foo State Park"
>  inner: leisure=park
>  relation wtih outer/inner: leisure=nature_reserve
>
> Or, perhaps not having a relation and putting leisure=nature_reserve on
> the outer, with the expectation that renderers/etc. will resolve the
> overapping landuse to the smaller geometry.
>
I think I would base deciding whatever leisure=nature_reserve (or 
boundary=protected_area)
should be multipolygon excluding inner or cover both should be based on a 
situation.

For example - is leisure=park area exempt from (all/nearly all) rules 
protecting remaining area?
It is probably should be multipolygon.

Is leisure=park area more intensively used but there are still some real 
restrictions? Probably
boundary=protected_area should also cover it.
___
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 Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:05 AM Greg Troxel  wrote:
> The other case is a large area with subareas that are each clearly one
> or the other.  Consider:
>
>   1000 acre parcel, almost entirely forest in a natural state, with dirt
>   hiking paths
>
>   a 40 acre sub-piece of this on the edge, that is different:
> - paved parking lot
> - visitor center / bathroom building
> - grass and a few trees (city park like)
> - picnic tables, grills
>
>   probably there are different rules for the two pieces.  Dogs might be
>   allowed in the 40-acre chunk, but not in the larger forest, for
>   example.
>
>   the entire thing is called "Foo State Park", owned by a state
>   government.  Legally it is one parcel, and run by the same state
>   agency.
>
> I think the basic issue is that we tend to focus on the larger
> definition of area and think we must give it one tag, so we frame the
> question: "Is this 1000 acre place a =park or a =nature_reserve?".
> Stepping back, I see a park and a nature_reserve as separate and related
> things.
>
> So, I'd be in favor of having a way on the parcel boundary, and another
> denoting the park-type sub-piece, calling those outer and inner and
> tagging:
>
>  outer: name="Foo State Park"
>  inner: leisure=park
>  relation wtih outer/inner: leisure=nature_reserve
>
> Or, perhaps not having a relation and putting leisure=nature_reserve on
> the outer, with the expectation that renderers/etc. will resolve the
> overapping landuse to the smaller geometry.
>
> (As I see it this applies to many National Parks too, but we don't worry
> about that because we just call them national_park.)

That's more or less what I've been doing - tag the outer ring, but
without cutouts for the inner ring(s). (It's also slightly more
complicated than you describe, since the developed areas are
frequently, if indeed not usually, on the margin of the larger park,
but I do understand multipolygon topology and can deal with that case
readily as well.) There's nothing wrong with embedding a
protect_class=1b or a protect_class=4 within a protect_class=2.

The reason for avoiding cutouts is to make it clear what is and is not
part of the named park. Many of the parks that I deal with have
private inholdings that are not part of the park but may be completely
surrounded by it. Those do get cutouts.

I haven't even attempted yet to map the strange intermediate beasts
like public-access conservation easements - common on lumber-company
land - or private leaseholds of public land - common to allow the
larger parks to embed facilities like youth camps that restrict public
access. I'm doing what I can manage!

The smaller state parks - the thousand-acre type that you contemplate
- are often not what IUCN considers to be protected areas, and so I've
taken to using protected_area tagging, but with protection classes
such as 21 (which woud be accompanied with
'protection_object=recreation').  That doesn't render, so as a
stopgap, I've been tagging them 'leisure=nature_reserve' or
'leisure=park', whichever seems to fit, recognizing that further
developments are likely eventually to make the dual tagging
unneccessary. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6442393 is
typical.

What I struggle with is are more complex situations - that may always
necessitate some 'abuse' of tagging. The thousand-acre park with a
forty-acre developed section is handled quite nicely with your scheme.
When you have a 'park' comprising hundreds of thousands, or millions
of acres, operated in public-private partnership, things start to
break down. This is true of New York's two huge parks; of the USA's
larger National Parks; and of US National Monuments, National Forests,
and BLM recreation lands. The outer ring - the legally designated area
- may not really enclose anything recognizable as a 'park', while the
stricter 'park' land management may be somewhat diffuse, in many
discrete protected areas. The larger area is also protected, but
limited sustainable development is often permitted.

Looking at the IUCN definitions, the only class that fits these large
parks is '2' - 'national park'. IUCN, like our Wiki, doesn't actually
require that 'national park' be constituted by a national government.
It simply embodies a hidden assumption that only a nation-state has
the resources to constitute one. leaving the bigger state-defined
facilities in terminologic limbo.

Another odd case that I've mapped a lot of are the undeveloped
recreation areas owned by New York City to protect its water supply.
The city bought them to protect them from development, and allows
public access (in some cases requiring that the user apply for a free
permit, in others, "come one, come all!") I've tagged these with
boundary=protected_area protect_class=12 protection_object=water, and
then added leisure=nature_reserve as a rendering stopgap (because
class 12 doesn't render either).

One reason that I disfavour 'leisure=park' is, simply, the renderer.
(I 

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29 Apr 2019, 15:02 by g...@lexort.com:

> The other case is a large area with subareas that are each clearly one
> or the other.  Consider:
>
>  1000 acre parcel, almost entirely forest in a natural state, with dirt
>  hiking paths
>
>  a 40 acre sub-piece of this on the edge, that is different:
>  - paved parking lot
>  - visitor center / bathroom building
>  - grass and a few trees (city park like)
>  - picnic tables, grills
>
>  probably there are different rules for the two pieces.  Dogs might be
>  allowed in the 40-acre chunk, but not in the larger forest, for
>  example.
>
>  the entire thing is called "Foo State Park", owned by a state
>  government.  Legally it is one parcel, and run by the same state
>  agency.
>
> I think the basic issue is that we tend to focus on the larger
> definition of area and think we must give it one tag, so we frame the
> question: "Is this 1000 acre place a =park or a =nature_reserve?".
> Stepping back, I see a park and a nature_reserve as separate and related
> things.
>
> So, I'd be in favor of having a way on the parcel boundary, and another
> denoting the park-type sub-piece, calling those outer and inner and
> tagging:
>
>  outer: name="Foo State Park"
>  inner: leisure=park
>  relation wtih outer/inner: leisure=nature_reserve
>
> Or, perhaps not having a relation and putting leisure=nature_reserve on
> the outer, with the expectation that renderers/etc. will resolve the
> overapping landuse to the smaller geometry.
>
> (As I see it this applies to many National Parks too, but we don't worry
> about that because we just call them national_park.)
>
> ___
> 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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29 Apr 2019, 15:28 by bradha...@fastmail.com:

> It doesn't restrict, as the leisure:park wiki does, to smaller, urban 
> human-sculpted parks.
>
I am partially responsible for recent rewrite. The rewrite was supposed to 
explain how leisure=park
is used in OpenStreetMap, and not redefine meaning of this tag. USA is a tricky 
case as typical
use of leisure=park was not matching use of leisure=park that was intended and 
initial and
dominating in other well mapped areas.

Restricting to "human-sculpted parks" was 100% intentional, "smaller" as in 
"area covering 
hundreds square kilometers is extremely unlikely to be leisure=park" was 
intentional.

Restricting it cities was not intentional and should be fixed if it  happened, 
some leisure=parks
exist in rural areas.

> Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for recreation', a 
> park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?
>
That would require redefining leisure=park and while would match use of word 
"park" in USA
it would start mismatching use of work "park" in UK. It would also start to 
mismatch how
leisure=park is used in Europe.

Generally British English is preferred in OSM and redefining popular tags is 
deeply problematic.

If someone feels that leisure=park as described by me here (and partially on 
Wiki)
misrepresents situation - I would participate in some wider discussion 
on global tagging mailing list if someone would start it.

Just recently leisure=park OSM Wiki page was basically without definition and 
discussion
page had basically failed definition attempt and I hope that was is now on the 
page is an improvement
over no definition/explanation at all, but...
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Private playgrounds (was Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29 Apr 2019, 13:56 by g...@lexort.com:

> It does mean that leisure=playground access=private is going to happen,
> in gated community-ish places.  But that's fine, I think.
>
Or in schools/kindergartens. (leisure=playground access=private is even 
supported
by a special rendering in OSM Carto ).
___
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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I would recommend starting to use boundary=protected_area for State
parks, and other parks that are large natural areas that are designed
for a balance of tourism and protection of the natural environment but
are not actually National Parks.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area

You can tag state parks like this:

boundary=protected_area + protect_class=2 + protection_title="State Park"

Protect Class 2 is the same type as National Parks, and will be
rendered and interpreted the same by most database users, but the
protection title makes it clear that it's actually a State Park, not a
National Park.

For county parks: many of these are small parks that are similar to a
usual urban park, with gardens, playgrounds, sports fields etc, and
can be tagged with leisure=park. Others are natural areas or nature
reserves, and could use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=5 +
protection_title="County Park".

State and National Forests, which are used for logging and grazing as
well as recreation, can be tagged as:
boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6 + protection_title="National
Forest" or "State Forest".

These features will all be rendered the same as boundary=national_park
and leisure=nature_reserve in many renderings styles, but it's nice to
be a little more specific.

___
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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

On 4/29/19, Greg Troxel  wrote:

> With leisure=nature_reserve, leisure=park, golf courses, cemetaries,
> schools, etc., we represent them on the map by some kind of shading or
> fill.  But, boundary=protected_area is represented by denoting the
> border, and this does not serve map users well.

If you are talking about the Openstreetmap-carto style (the standard
map layer on openstreetmap.org), then this is not quite correct.

It's true that leisure=park and golf courses are represented by a fill
color for the whole polygon.

However, leisure=natural_reserve, boundary=national_park and
boundary_protected area (with protect_class  1 thru 7 and 97-99) are
currently rendered identically, with a green semi-transparent outline.
(There is also a semi-transparent green fill at low zoom levels).

The other type of boundary is "boundary=aboriginal_lands" and
"boundary = 'protected_area" with "protect_class=24" - these are used
for American Indian and Alaskan Native reservations and other similar
features, and are
rendered with a brown outline.

Military areas and tourist areas (zoos, theme parks) are also rendered
with outlines in red and purple.

___
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

[brad]

It seems that plain language can be used here, and from the Oxford 
dictionary, a park is:

" A large public garden or area of land used for recreation."
It doesn't restrict, as the leisure:park wiki does, to smaller, urban 
human-sculpted parks.
In CO the county, city (some very large parks), and state parks are 
tagged as leisure:park.    This makes sense from the local dialect 
perspective as well as the Oxford english.


Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for 
recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?


Sorry I'm chiming in late to the discussion, I've been travelling and 
mostly unplugged for a week.


On 4/29/19 5:37 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:

The real problem is that we have two linguistic traditions: one is plain
langauge, and one is tagging tokens.  People keep blurring them, and of
course this is going to continue.  We end up with having to explain
"Just becuase it says 'Foo Park' doesn't mean it's a park."  If we had

#define LEISURE_PARK0x451

and we were talking about if something were a LEISURE_PARK then it would
be clearer about plain language vs tagging tokens.

OSM Volunteer stevea  writes:


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.

I think that's a correct assessment.  Except that we have to be careful
about "recreation" -- a place that is largely soccer and baseball fields
is recreation_ground.  If you mean walking around, then agreed.

In Massachusetts, I'd say an interesting data point in distinguishing
"park" vs "nature_reserve" is that in a park you are not that likely to
pick up ticks (ixodes scapularis), and in a nature_reserve it is very
likely.  But that's just a proxy for "sculpted" vs "natural".


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?

I don't really follow "going forward" and "inevitable".  If you mean:

   We the mailinglist more or less agree, to the extent we ever do, that
   things that don't meet definition above  should not be leisure=park,
   and we should tag those things appropriately, both for new objects,
   and people fixing old objects.

then that sounds right.

Another question is: If we didn't have the special national_park tag,
how would they be tagged?  I would say that most would be
leisure=nature_reserve overall, with perhaps some small segments as
leisure=park, and then a few messy cases (Dry Tortugas, maybe Mesa
Verde).  I don't seriously expect us to get rid of the national_park
tag, so that's a moot point.


___
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

[Greg Troxel]

One of the things that has come up is "mixed-use parks", where an area
is not clearly one thing or the other.  I see two kinds of cases (with
of course a blurry line between the cases).

One case is an area where there are two kinds of uses close together, in
a way that's hard to draw a sensible line.  More "this place is both"
than "there are two places near each other treated as the same name".
Consider a smallish area that is both leisure=park and
leisure=recreation_ground.  Assume there is some grass with paved paths,
perhaps some flowers, a few trees, and an area with picnic tables,
perhaps with some roofs, and some charcoal grills.  That's clearly
leisure=park.  Then add a pond with swimming and a bath house for
changing.  Or two soccer fields.  Those by themselves are
leisure=recreation_ground.  Assume that this area is one parcel, managed
as one entity, and named as one thing by the owning body.  So how to tag
it?  Here, I would argue that one should simply look the more
significant use, and pick that and don't worry.  I would lean to park
when on the park/recreation_ground line, because the sports fields will
be tagged as pitches, and once those are there, they are rendered and
findable, regardless of the overall area being tagged as
recreation_ground.

The other case is a large area with subareas that are each clearly one
or the other.  Consider:

  1000 acre parcel, almost entirely forest in a natural state, with dirt
  hiking paths

  a 40 acre sub-piece of this on the edge, that is different:
- paved parking lot
- visitor center / bathroom building
- grass and a few trees (city park like)
- picnic tables, grills

  probably there are different rules for the two pieces.  Dogs might be
  allowed in the 40-acre chunk, but not in the larger forest, for
  example.

  the entire thing is called "Foo State Park", owned by a state
  government.  Legally it is one parcel, and run by the same state
  agency.

I think the basic issue is that we tend to focus on the larger
definition of area and think we must give it one tag, so we frame the
question: "Is this 1000 acre place a =park or a =nature_reserve?".
Stepping back, I see a park and a nature_reserve as separate and related
things.

So, I'd be in favor of having a way on the parcel boundary, and another
denoting the park-type sub-piece, calling those outer and inner and
tagging:

 outer: name="Foo State Park"
 inner: leisure=park
 relation wtih outer/inner: leisure=nature_reserve

Or, perhaps not having a relation and putting leisure=nature_reserve on
the outer, with the expectation that renderers/etc. will resolve the
overapping landuse to the smaller geometry.

(As I see it this applies to many National Parks too, but we don't worry
about that because we just call them national_park.)

___
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

[brad]

Unless we're going to be clear that a national park is a park 
owned/operated by a nation,  I'd be on board with this. Associating it 
with size is too ambiguous


On 4/29/19 5:24 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:

OSM Volunteer stevea  writes:


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?

My view is that we should deprecate the national_park tag entirely, and
end up with tags that represent what something is and who
owns/administers it separately.  And generally separate things that are
sane to separate.

Plus, I really doubt that what gets called "national park" in various
countries is the same definition.

___
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

[brad]

Agreed.
'National Park' is very specific.   We have national parks and we have 
state, county, regional ... parks.


National:
*: *belonging to or maintained by the federal government

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/national


On 4/27/19 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:



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


___
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

[Greg Troxel]

Jmapb  writes:

> On 4/26/2019 9:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

>> 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.
>
> Certainly. But speaking as a map user, 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.

THe issue is that leisure=playground does not mean "kids do play here".

It means instead:

  This is a place that has been established as a place to play, and is
  maintained in such a way that such activities are reasonable.  It is
  more or less open to the public (or perhaps associated with a school
  or other facility, or gated community, etc. for exclusive use of their
  people).  It is almost certainly known as a playground or similar to
  those living in the area.

That excludes play sets in back yards, and places where kids go in the
woods in an ad hoc or against-the-rules manner.

It does mean that leisure=playground access=private is going to happen,
in gated community-ish places.  But that's fine, I think.

___
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

[Greg Troxel]

OSM Volunteer stevea  writes:

> It may be emerging that tagging boundary=protected_area (where
> correct) where leisure=park now exists and we delete it, begins to
> supersede leisure=park on many North American now-called-parks.  I
> think that's OK, maybe even overdue.  To be clear, there are plenty of
> "we now call them parks" which are more like protected_area boundary
> areas or maybe "it is what it is today, nothing more."

I think you are not saying that a proper leisure=park should be
protected_area, but that some things which are really protected_area are
mistagged as park.

Here I will mostly talk about leisure=nature_reserve sorts of places, to
include national_park sorts of places that would be
leisure=nature_reserve if we didn't have national_park tags.

I have two problems with the notion of boundary=protected_area:

1) The current landuse is one thing, and legal protection for the future
is another.  Just because something is a nature reserve now doesn't mean
it has legal protection.

A town might own 300 acres of woods, have hiking trails, and have it
signed as "Foo Conservation Area".  That's enough to tag it
landuse=conservation (because that's the current actual landuse) and
leisure=nature_reserve.  But, 20 years from now, they might sell that to
a developer to buy some other land which has conservation value and
enough upland to build that new schoool they want.  So in this case
boundary=protected_area is completely inappropriate.

2) boundary=protected_area is semantically confused, because what is
being tagged is not the boundary, but the status of the area within the
boundary.

Of course, there is a computer-sciency duality between a boundary and
the area within the boundary.  From this viewpoint, things are entirely
equivalent.  But, humans interpret tags other than according to the
strict tagging definition semantics, and they tend to treat
boundary=protected_area as being about the boundary, particularly in
rendering.

With admin boundaries, there is a sense of "the land inside is in this
town", but we have a long cartographic culture of drawing lines on the
map.  These separate towns and states, for example, and it's understood
that this is a large feature and that shading them is not that useful,
except on small-scale maps where there is arbitrary coloring to
visualize that.

With leisure=nature_reserve, leisure=park, golf courses, cemetaries,
schools, etc., we represent them on the map by some kind of shading or
fill.  But, boundary=protected_area is represented by denoting the
border, and this does not serve map users wel.

> I think the greatest thing to "shake out" of this so far is that the
> leisure=park tag can (and should be) frequently be dismissed in
> preference to boundary=protected_area.  This alone will assert a great
> deal of sanity back into things around here.  Whether we invent a tag
> called proto_park ('cause there are such things, the city council just
> hasn't budgeted or spent the money to build it into a more fully
> human-leisure-place, yet).

There is no sanity in boundary=protected_area!  There would be in
area_protected=yes, if it were only used to describe areas that actually
have legal protection (easement or conservation restriction, state or
national And).

That aside, I think favoring boundary=protected_area for parks is a
major step backwards from separating separate concepts.  What is on the
ground, and what the legal protections are against change, are separate
things and should be kept separate.

Arguably, National Parks are no more protected than a parcel of woods
owned by a town (absent any CR/easemetn/state conservation status)
because the owning body can change the rules in the same manner.

In contrast, formal conservation land owned by towns in Mass requires
permission of the state to take out of conservation status.  And there's
the NY example, where the state government can't change things via
normal law.

But, it comes down to "how hard would it be politically", and that's not
really that useful.

___
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

[Greg Troxel]

The real problem is that we have two linguistic traditions: one is plain
langauge, and one is tagging tokens.  People keep blurring them, and of
course this is going to continue.  We end up with having to explain
"Just becuase it says 'Foo Park' doesn't mean it's a park."  If we had

#define LEISURE_PARK0x451

and we were talking about if something were a LEISURE_PARK then it would
be clearer about plain language vs tagging tokens.

OSM Volunteer stevea  writes:

> 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.

I think that's a correct assessment.  Except that we have to be careful
about "recreation" -- a place that is largely soccer and baseball fields
is recreation_ground.  If you mean walking around, then agreed.

In Massachusetts, I'd say an interesting data point in distinguishing
"park" vs "nature_reserve" is that in a park you are not that likely to
pick up ticks (ixodes scapularis), and in a nature_reserve it is very
likely.  But that's just a proxy for "sculpted" vs "natural".

> 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?

I don't really follow "going forward" and "inevitable".  If you mean:

  We the mailinglist more or less agree, to the extent we ever do, that
  things that don't meet definition above  should not be leisure=park,
  and we should tag those things appropriately, both for new objects,
  and people fixing old objects.

then that sounds right.

Another question is: If we didn't have the special national_park tag,
how would they be tagged?  I would say that most would be
leisure=nature_reserve overall, with perhaps some small segments as
leisure=park, and then a few messy cases (Dry Tortugas, maybe Mesa
Verde).  I don't seriously expect us to get rid of the national_park
tag, so that's a moot point.


___
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

[Greg Troxel]

OSM Volunteer stevea  writes:

> 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?

My view is that we should deprecate the national_park tag entirely, and
end up with tags that represent what something is and who
owns/administers it separately.  And generally separate things that are
sane to separate.

Plus, I really doubt that what gets called "national park" in various
countries is the same definition.

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