Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks
At the rough level presented here, I think all of these could and probably should be validly tagged as leisure=park, particularly if a local mapper has tagged them as such. I don't think it makes sense to limit the size, that seems to be micromanaging (no pun intended :)). Sometimes people make things too complicated. If a teenager maps there back yard as a park, that's not open to the public, so it isn't a park. These other examples are open to the public, so park is a valid tag. On 10/1/19 8:26 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, the DWG has been called upon to mediate a conflict between mappers, and one small part of this conflict is the question of "when is a park a park". Some of you know the persons involved and some of you might *be* the persons involved but I would like to discuss this not on a personal level and have therefore tried to separate these examples from any changeset discussions or usernames, and I'm not providing direct links to OSM either, to avoid clouding anyone's judgement by mixing up personal and factual issues. I have prepared four examples on which I'd like to hear the opinion of a couple people (if you are one of the mappers in conflict here, please refrain from participating) but there are more like this. --- Case 1: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings. I believe they might originally have come from an nmixter import with a "zone=PR-PP" which was then interpreted as meaning it's somehow a "park". It has temporarily been leisure=park AND natural=beach and park:type=county_park and now it is boundary=protected_area and leisure=nature_reserve and park:type=county_park and protect_class=7, without any indication where that protection comes from (and looking at the aerial imagery it will be difficult to verify anything). --- Case 2: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case2.png The tree-covered green area in the middle of the image is a leisure=park, the woodland all together (sharing the eastern border of the "park" but otherwise much larger) is a natural=wood area. In the south and west the "park" connects to "residential" areas (that are partly covered by the natural=wood), in the north the park connects to a landuse=industrial (also partly covered by wood). One mapper says "not a park", the other mapper says that according to CPAD 2018a and SCCGIS v5 this is a park (none of these are listed as a source though) and then proceeds to say: "It is a park in the sense of American English as of 2019. Whether it is a park according to OSM may be debatable, as it is an "unimproved" park, meaning it is under development as to improvements like restrooms and other amenities. However, it is an "urban green space open to public recreation" and therefore does meet OSM's definition according to me." --- Case 3: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case3.png The highlighted area in the middle of the picture straddles a street and parts of an amenity=parking north and south of the street and seems to rather arbitrarily cut through the woodland at its northern edge. Mapper 1: "This isn't a park. It's just a small fenced off grassy area.". Mapper 2: "It is a park according to County Park as it meets the leisure=park definition of "area of open space for recreational use" and contains amenities (parking)." It is currently tagged leisure=park. --- Case 4: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case4.png Red highlight is a "leisure=park" "zone=PR" (the latter probably left over from an import). Larger, green area that is mostly overlapping this "park" but also cutting an edge in the NW is natural=wood. Mapper 1: "This park doesn't exist." Mapper 2: "It is undeveloped land managed by County Parks in a sort of proto park state. How would YOU map this?" --- I find that both mappers here make valid points. Generally, in times where every teenager maps their back porch as a park in the hope of attracting Pokemon, I am leaning towards being careful with parks; I would love to have a rule of thumb that says "if it doesn't have a name (or if it's not more than sq ft) then it's not a park, it is just some trees" or so. Just because an area of a few 100 sq ft is technically a "park" in some county GIS system, doesn't mean we have to call it a park in OSM, and the idea that any patch of earth with three trees on it and two cars parked on it is a "park" because it is "open to the public" and "has amenities" sounds very far-fetched to me. Also, mapping micro-protected areas on a rocky shore seems to be of limited value to me and puts a big burden on anyone who wants to verify that. But I'd like to hear others chiming in. (This particular mapper conflict has other dimensions that just parks and DWG's further actions towards the mappers involved will not depend on the outcome of this discussion.) Bye Frederik ___ Talk-us mailing list
Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks
All of these cases are somewhat deceptive and deserve more research. In cases 1, 3, and 4 - these areas are slivers or discontinuous areas from actual parks. Case 2 may also be a discontinuous area, but it's not as obvious as the other areas. My suggestion would be to zoom out a little bit and see what's going on around these weird little areas and clean them up so that they represent reality. So the problem isn't really "is this a park or not" exactly, but an issue of scale of the original source data. On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 10:27 AM Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > the DWG has been called upon to mediate a conflict between mappers, and > one small part of this conflict is the question of "when is a park a park". > > Some of you know the persons involved and some of you might *be* the > persons involved but I would like to discuss this not on a personal > level and have therefore tried to separate these examples from any > changeset discussions or usernames, and I'm not providing direct links > to OSM either, to avoid clouding anyone's judgement by mixing up > personal and factual issues. > > I have prepared four examples on which I'd like to hear the opinion of a > couple people (if you are one of the mappers in conflict here, please > refrain from participating) but there are more like this. > > --- > > Case 1: > > http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png > > Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings. I > believe they might originally have come from an nmixter import with a > "zone=PR-PP" which was then interpreted as meaning it's somehow a > "park". It has temporarily been leisure=park AND natural=beach and > park:type=county_park and now it is boundary=protected_area and > leisure=nature_reserve and park:type=county_park and protect_class=7, > without any indication where that protection comes from (and looking at > the aerial imagery it will be difficult to verify anything). > > --- > > Case 2: > > http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case2.png > > The tree-covered green area in the middle of the image is a > leisure=park, the woodland all together (sharing the eastern border of > the "park" but otherwise much larger) is a natural=wood area. In the > south and west the "park" connects to "residential" areas (that are > partly covered by the natural=wood), in the north the park connects to a > landuse=industrial (also partly covered by wood). > > One mapper says "not a park", the other mapper says that according to > CPAD 2018a and SCCGIS v5 this is a park (none of these are listed as a > source though) and then proceeds to say: > > "It is a park in the sense of American English as of 2019. Whether it is > a park according to OSM may be debatable, as it is an "unimproved" park, > meaning it is under development as to improvements like restrooms and > other amenities. However, it is an "urban green space open to public > recreation" and therefore does meet OSM's definition according to me." > > --- > > Case 3: > > http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case3.png > > The highlighted area in the middle of the picture straddles a street and > parts of an amenity=parking north and south of the street and seems to > rather arbitrarily cut through the woodland at its northern edge. > > Mapper 1: "This isn't a park. It's just a small fenced off grassy > area.". Mapper 2: "It is a park according to County Park as it meets the > leisure=park definition of "area of open space for recreational use" and > contains amenities (parking)." > > It is currently tagged leisure=park. > > --- > > Case 4: > > http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case4.png > > Red highlight is a "leisure=park" "zone=PR" (the latter probably left > over from an import). Larger, green area that is mostly overlapping this > "park" but also cutting an edge in the NW is natural=wood. > > Mapper 1: "This park doesn't exist." Mapper 2: "It is undeveloped land > managed by County Parks in a sort of proto park state. How would YOU map > this?" > > --- > > I find that both mappers here make valid points. Generally, in times > where every teenager maps their back porch as a park in the hope of > attracting Pokemon, I am leaning towards being careful with parks; I > would love to have a rule of thumb that says "if it doesn't have a name > (or if it's not more than sq ft) then it's not a park, it is just > some trees" or so. Just because an area of a few 100 sq ft is > technically a "park" in some county GIS system, doesn't mean we have to > call it a park in OSM, and the idea that any patch of earth with three > trees on it and two cars parked on it is a "park" because it is "open to > the public" and "has amenities" sounds very far-fetched to me. > > Also, mapping micro-protected areas on a rocky shore seems to be of > limited value to me and puts a big burden on anyone who wants to verify > that. > > But I'd like to hear others chiming in. > > (This particular mapper conflict has other dimensions that
Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:04 PM Bill Ricker wrote: > In many other matters we say we map the signage. > That is not a bad place to start here. > So a rule of it needs at least a name and/or a physical sign would be > internally consistent and predictably OSMish. > An exception to allow for un-named de-facto parks when someone (official or > guerilla) is engaged in improvements and maintenance of the de-facto park > would be wise, to cover the corner cases where it's legally a vacant lot but > in reality it's a public good. > (I type while looking out the window at one such, and no, it's not my doing.) In my area, there are also town 'parks' that are intentionally left undeveloped, and some of those are unsigned. They are in the town plan, intentionally to support passive recreational activities such as walking and bird watching, and to preserve the forested appearance of the community. There are groups of volunteers who maintain things like walking and MTB trails in them. I tag those 'leisure=nature_reserve boundary=protected_area protect_class=21' for want of anything better. I don't use 'leisure=park' for those (but I also don't disrupt the tagging of other mappers, so if I see one tagged 'leisure=park' I leave it alone. They may have names like 'Fieldstone Drive Park' or Ĺock 7 Park' in the plan - but those are really just the names of other features that front on the parcel. The green space east of the shopping mall in https://tinyurl.com/yyyj2m3l is an example. I don't recall there being a signed entrance. When I've gone there, I've just parked on one of the residential streets and hopped over a guard rail onto a trail - knowing full well that it was lawful because I'd researched the matter.. I've not yet mapped the little area that the township owns at a corner where two streets meet at a very acute angle (that used to be across the street from the town hall before they built the new one). The town keeps it pretty; it's big enough to hold a flagpole, a fountain, a couple of flower beds and a bench or two, but it's really just a tiny wedge of land that couldn't be put to any more profitable use. A policeman comes out daily to raise and lower the flag. I don't think it has a name. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks
On 10/1/2019 10:26 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Case 1: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings. Case 2: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case2.png The tree-covered green area in the middle of the image I certainly wouldn't tag either of these as a leisure=park based on the aerial images, but I assume the mappers in question have some additional information. In particular, though, I'd look for designated public access (not just permissive) and some kind of actual leisure opportunities (not just "you can legally sit on the ground here"). I don't see evidence of those. Case 3: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case3.png The highlighted area in the middle of the picture straddles a street and parts of an amenity=parking north and south of the street and seems to rather arbitrarily cut through the woodland at its northern edge. I think this looks parky enough, as long as it's not signed in a way to prevent public use. Definitely has physical access, even parking, and it looks like you could sit on a picnic blanket or fly a kite, as long as it didn't get tangled in those power lines. But I'd be suspicious of both the northern and southern boundaries. Case 4: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case4.png Red highlight is a "leisure=park" "zone=PR" (the latter probably left over from an import). Larger, green area that is mostly overlapping this "park" but also cutting an edge in the NW is natural=wood. Nah, that's not a park. If someone wants to tag the operator or ownership or protection status, sure, tag away. If it's a future park, use a lifecycle prefix like proposed:leisure=park. ...Just my gut reactions, J ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks
> Mapper 1: "This park doesn't exist." Mapper 2: "It is undeveloped land > managed by County Parks in a sort of proto park state. How would YOU map > this?" > I find that both mappers here make valid points. Yes they do. Generally, in times > where every teenager maps their back porch as a park in the hope of > attracting Pokemon, I am leaning towards being careful with parks; Yes. (Although metadata hygiene is a valid goal in itself, one that is being abused needs extra flossing and irrigation.) > I would love to have a rule of thumb that says "if it doesn't have a name > (or if it's not more than sq ft) then it's not a park, it is just > some trees" or so. In many other matters we say we map the signage. That is not a bad place to start here. So a rule of it needs at least a name and/or a physical sign would be internally consistent and predictably OSMish. (And no, "Cabrillo Park Court Undeveloped Tract" is not a Park name, it's a lot/tract name. It's a Lot.) An exception to allow for un-named de-facto parks when someone (official or guerilla) is engaged in improvements and maintenance of the de-facto park would be wise, to cover the corner cases where it's legally a vacant lot but in reality it's a public good. (I type while looking out the window at one such, and no, it's not my doing.) There is no useful SQ FT minimum on official parks. Guinness and Portland Parks (ORE) recognizes a 3 SQ FT park as officially smallest and official: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill_Ends_Park452 sq in (0.292 m2) (After 20+ years, this guerrilla park was recognized by the city, and now even has lilliputian signage. Keep Portland Weird folks!) Just because an area of a few 100 sq ft is > technically a "park" in some county GIS system, doesn't mean we have to > call it a park in OSM, Right. Landuse / land tenurage imports are interesting sources for alternate basemap layers, but should not be confused with primary mapping; and entries under landuse / tenurage should not be confused with Amenities. Parks Dept may not have the budget or approved plans to en-park-ify everything that is transferred to their control immediately. Transfer of Ownership doesn't magically confer signage, waste cans, benches, curfew gates, lighting, and other improvements. If Parks Dept lists it as a public amenity on their public website - not just the GIS - then it can be a park even if it isn't yet named or signed. and the idea that any patch of earth with three > trees on it and two cars parked on it is a "park" because it is "open to > the public" and "has amenities" sounds very far-fetched to me. > I Agree. Mapper 2 asks a good question, how to map the proto-park; this is a hint for where the Wiki needs more wikignome work. Ownership by County Parks should be reflected as land-use/tenurage/restrictions; it does not imply an amenity. De facto public use does not make an un-tended acre a Park. -- 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
[Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks
Hi, the DWG has been called upon to mediate a conflict between mappers, and one small part of this conflict is the question of "when is a park a park". Some of you know the persons involved and some of you might *be* the persons involved but I would like to discuss this not on a personal level and have therefore tried to separate these examples from any changeset discussions or usernames, and I'm not providing direct links to OSM either, to avoid clouding anyone's judgement by mixing up personal and factual issues. I have prepared four examples on which I'd like to hear the opinion of a couple people (if you are one of the mappers in conflict here, please refrain from participating) but there are more like this. --- Case 1: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings. I believe they might originally have come from an nmixter import with a "zone=PR-PP" which was then interpreted as meaning it's somehow a "park". It has temporarily been leisure=park AND natural=beach and park:type=county_park and now it is boundary=protected_area and leisure=nature_reserve and park:type=county_park and protect_class=7, without any indication where that protection comes from (and looking at the aerial imagery it will be difficult to verify anything). --- Case 2: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case2.png The tree-covered green area in the middle of the image is a leisure=park, the woodland all together (sharing the eastern border of the "park" but otherwise much larger) is a natural=wood area. In the south and west the "park" connects to "residential" areas (that are partly covered by the natural=wood), in the north the park connects to a landuse=industrial (also partly covered by wood). One mapper says "not a park", the other mapper says that according to CPAD 2018a and SCCGIS v5 this is a park (none of these are listed as a source though) and then proceeds to say: "It is a park in the sense of American English as of 2019. Whether it is a park according to OSM may be debatable, as it is an "unimproved" park, meaning it is under development as to improvements like restrooms and other amenities. However, it is an "urban green space open to public recreation" and therefore does meet OSM's definition according to me." --- Case 3: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case3.png The highlighted area in the middle of the picture straddles a street and parts of an amenity=parking north and south of the street and seems to rather arbitrarily cut through the woodland at its northern edge. Mapper 1: "This isn't a park. It's just a small fenced off grassy area.". Mapper 2: "It is a park according to County Park as it meets the leisure=park definition of "area of open space for recreational use" and contains amenities (parking)." It is currently tagged leisure=park. --- Case 4: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case4.png Red highlight is a "leisure=park" "zone=PR" (the latter probably left over from an import). Larger, green area that is mostly overlapping this "park" but also cutting an edge in the NW is natural=wood. Mapper 1: "This park doesn't exist." Mapper 2: "It is undeveloped land managed by County Parks in a sort of proto park state. How would YOU map this?" --- I find that both mappers here make valid points. Generally, in times where every teenager maps their back porch as a park in the hope of attracting Pokemon, I am leaning towards being careful with parks; I would love to have a rule of thumb that says "if it doesn't have a name (or if it's not more than sq ft) then it's not a park, it is just some trees" or so. Just because an area of a few 100 sq ft is technically a "park" in some county GIS system, doesn't mean we have to call it a park in OSM, and the idea that any patch of earth with three trees on it and two cars parked on it is a "park" because it is "open to the public" and "has amenities" sounds very far-fetched to me. Also, mapping micro-protected areas on a rocky shore seems to be of limited value to me and puts a big burden on anyone who wants to verify that. But I'd like to hear others chiming in. (This particular mapper conflict has other dimensions that just parks and DWG's further actions towards the mappers involved will not depend on the outcome of this discussion.) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
