Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:12 PM OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > I myself have also used landuse=conservation (long ago) and/or > leisure=nature_reserve (neither of which render, not really the point). My understanding is that landuse=conservation is deprecated in favor of boundary=protected_area. leisure=nature_reserve does indeed render. boundary=protected_area, I am given to understand, renders if the protection class is between 1 and 6 (with 1a and 1b also rendering). > > 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. > > Some say "size matters" with national_park, some say it's too confusing for > size to matter. It doesn't seem we're going to eliminate > boundary=national_park anytime soon, as even though this shouldn't have > mattered, it did: this was a tag that rendered, so people used it. (How > rendering — presently, eventually, politically-within-OSM... — gets coupled > to tagging is another chewy topic). Some say that 'level of government matters' or that 'title matters' as well, but I think that the right way to think about it is function.The two parks in New York that enjoy constitutional protection effectively function as if they were national parks in other countries, as do many facilities in the US that are titled, 'National Monument' or even 'National Forest'. They conform with the Wiki definition of 'national park'. I suspect that relatively few, even among the tourists who've been there, could distinguish among the coterminous 'Sequoia National Park', 'Giant Sequoia National Monument, and 'Sequoia National Forest'. There was a proposal in the 1960's to transfer control of the Adirondack Park to Uncle Sam, which would have created the nation's largest National Park at the time. It was tremendously unpopular and never went anywhere, but it was recognition that the two systems serve a similar purpose. Baxter State Park in Maine is more stringently protected than the adjoining Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument, and its scenery is considerably more spectacular. For New York's confusing array of facilities, I've been careful to retain protected_area tagging, in case we should lose all the arguments and have no other consistent tagging left to us. Unfortunately, to have that make sense, I've had to choose protect_class=21 protection_object=recreation, since they aren't generally nature-protected areas. (I try to tag them case by case - I've not done a massive botched import.) Since that protection class doesn't render, we're little better off from the standpoint of showing something on the map. About half the array of facilities is represented in the table on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NYS_DEC_Lands. Nothing there is tagged 'park', it's all nature_reserve - with a handful of exceptions (fish hatchery, historic site, and notably state forest). Multiple Use Area probably *should* be the same as whatever we wind up deciding is right for the typical 'state park' but right now they're nature reserves. The remaining half of the facilities are the State Parks, State Historic Sites, and State Recreation Areas (maybe other titles, too, I need to check my notes) that are administered by a completely different department of the state government. My personal worst case of 'city park' is one that would fall solidly within the European definition of 'park' - except that, well, it's sort of also a cemetery. https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1438926 I made the somewhat arbitrary decision of using multipolygons that follow the land use rather than the property line. It's a mess, and it's what I've got. ___ 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
Apologies if I've already answered these. On Apr 24, 2019, at 4:34 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > I think Kevin has it right that we should tag primarily by something > about land use, not by owne/operator, although it's fine to tag > operator. I 100% agree. Yet I peruse landuse key values (except park is noted leisure=park, which means I'm chasing my tail so I ignore it) and find that none of them come close to describing "park" (the American English sense). I myself have also used landuse=conservation (long ago) and/or leisure=nature_reserve (neither of which render, not really the point). > 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. Some say "size matters" with national_park, some say it's too confusing for size to matter. It doesn't seem we're going to eliminate boundary=national_park anytime soon, as even though this shouldn't have mattered, it did: this was a tag that rendered, so people used it. (How rendering — presently, eventually, politically-within-OSM... — gets coupled to tagging is another chewy topic). 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
The linguist in me feels compelled to be a bit pedantic: terms like "plain language" and "human language" used to distinguish between data/code/machine kinds of "language," including what we mean by "tagging" or "codepoint" are, I believe, well-expressed with the (linguistic community) phrase "natural language." Much of what OSM is going through with "park" is because: 1) leisure=park wasn't clearly defined (this is essentially the most important lesson), 2) "park" has wide variation in what is meant (I have noted a distinctly American English dialect usage that is much more inclusive than that how OSM defines "park" as in 1), 3) the drift apart between less-precise (over 15 years of tagging) usage of leisure=park, more-precise definition of leisure=park (which we partly say "what we meant all along" but others disagree, as it was less-precisely defined) has become severe, brought into focus as we recently made more precise the definition of leisure=park. (Ostensibly to mean "what we meant all along," but which appears to be a significant re-definition to many, especially in the USA, where American English is used and its word "park" shaped the lack of precision definition in our wiki for the first 15 years of OSM). Well, about there, anyway. I think most or even all of us know this, I wanted to state it as explicitly as I do here. These are my opinions, though they rise from long-term observation. 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
At today's creation of https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:Key:park:type , I introduce a proposal to reduce usage of the park:type tag (initially, in the USA) with the goal of better clarifying USA park tagging. There are a couple of "low hanging fruit" tasks we might do as a pilot run, though past these easy ones this will require additional community interaction. That Discussion page is a good place to do so. If you think you might offer some perspective on how the many values of park:type (state_park, city_park, state_beach, county_park, national_forest, state_game_land, state_recreational_area, private_park...) might help us better characterize and improve USA park tagging, please take a look at the brief discussion initiated there. You are invited to participate. Thank you, SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
