Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

[stevea]

Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
in reply to the
1 Oct 2019, 16:26 post by Frederik Ramm :

> Case 1:
> http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png
> Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings.
> It is hard to imagine to me situation where
> it would be leisure=park.

That is because OSM often uses a definition of "leisure=park" as it is 
better-known in Europe as (approximately) "smaller urban manicured green space" 
(and which I tried mightily six months ago to remedy in our park wiki and its 
Talk page, but was ineffectively confused / muddied by the other party in this 
"dispute").  We (he and I, the two whom Frederik says are "in dispute") 
actually DID come to a relatively benign agreement here, in this specific case, 
where these two polygons are now tagged leisure=nature_reserve (NOT 
leisure=park) as well as boundary=protected_area (as they are, according to 
CPAD and/or SCCGIS, which have been documented in our Contributors wiki at 
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Contributors#California_Protected_Areas_Database for 
many months and https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Landuse 
wiki for many years) + protect_class=7.  The value of this key was actually one 
of the few times where the other OSM volunteer who disputed this agreed with me 
that the correct value could be one of two or three different values, and this 
is the one we settled on.  To be clear, the "dispute" that Frederik appears to 
be arbitrating is over me closing an OSM Note here where I noted this, saying 
"Resolvable, resolved" and then closed the Note.  The other party ignored the 
Note he left open for months (five months, without doing anything to resolve 
it, in another disingenuous gesture) to apparently "stir up muck" (vex and 
annoy, really).

Recall, these are from a ten-year-old nmixter import which I spent literally 
several years and tens of thousands of thoughtful "compares" (the SCCGIS data 
that were entered, vs. my good knowledge of how OSM should "best tag") and this 
is one vestige where another volunteer (the other in this dispute) found fault 
with my corrections, then HE entered a Note (many, actually, this is one), 
which resulted in the "compromise entries" we find now.  I remain in a 
listening mode as to how other mappers would tag what came from a state agency 
calling these a "park" and that went through MANY iterations of "not really a 
park," which I readily and certainly have agreed to (factually, it is not 
tagged leisure=park today).  The Note (https://www.osm.org/note/1759733) was 
closed, correctly in my opinion, as it is truly "resolvable."

By the way (Frederik), I don't know how "if you are one of the mappers in 
conflict here, please refrain from participating" works in Germany or OSM in 
general, but I am not used to nor do I appreciate being told to not speak up 
for myself when my edits are called into question.  It feels very much like 
censorship, having tape placed across my mouth, or having my hands tied behind 
my back.  We have freedom of speech in my country, we have freedom of speech in 
OSM (so I believe), even during disputes under arbitration by the DWG and 
especially when some of the facts presented are slightly in error.  Yesterday, 
I meant to send the correction (not really participation, but correcting a 
mistake in the data presented to talk-us) directly to Frederik, but I 
mistakenly sent to the list (something I virtually never do by mistake, but I 
did make that "Reply all" mistake yesterday).  Nonetheless, I fail to see the 
value in Frederick's / the DWG's "ask" that I refrain from participating, 
especially when some of the facts presented are not quite correct (I place no 
blame or value judgement about that, it is entirely possible that Frederik's 
edits and mine simply crossed over eight time zones — a perfectly innocent 
explanation).

I, too, value as many other participants and perspectives as we might view here 
in talk-us on these topics.  They are difficult, they cause friction and I wish 
to see light, not heat, though resolution (on many fronts, by many volunteers) 
has proven exceedingly hard to come by.

> "zone=PR-PP" which was then interpreted as meaning it's somehow a
> "park".
> Is this a typical quality of this import?

Mateusz, again:  "this import" was from a notoriously "import happy" mapper 
from ten years ago who I know personally and has been widely admonished many 
times over during the last decade for his poor edits.  MY participation was to 
improve the data into what BestOfOSM.org eventually called "nearly perfect 
landuse."  I have striven to do this over many years, as best I can, logically 
mapping the imported (zoning) data to OSM's landuse tags, with full explanation 
of my reasoning all along the way in wiki, personal messages and patient 
answers with all and sundry with whom I and others interacted as we edited 
these (multi)polygons here.  When others dispute(d) my findings or tagging, I 
listen(ed) and 

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

[Wolfgang Zenker]

Hi,

I guess we have (as so often) a problem with unconscious cultural bias
here. Property rights in Europe are generally much more limited than in
the US, e.g. in all but one(?) German states all forests are by law public
access, regardless of ownership. Also open farmland, meadows, etc.,
anything that is not fenced or walled in or immediately around houses
can normally be assumed to be public access in much of Europe, and the few
exceptions would be clearly signposted. I guess most european mappers
are not aware that the situation is different in other parts of the
world, so they simply have no idea why it could be necessary to tag a
piece of forest as a "park" to show it is a public access space.

Wolfgang
( lyx @ osm )

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

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 2:40 AM Michael Patrick  wrote:

> > "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.
>
> In Seattle, there are efforts to un-improve certain parks to restore them
> as close as possible to native conditions, especially for salmon run
> restoration, wildlife corridors, and plant species preservation.
>

Here, too. I tag them `leisure=nature_reserve` and
`boundary=protected_area` with an appropriate `protect_class`. According to
OSM's view, they are not `leisure=park` even if they have 'park' in their
names. (The US actually has relatively few objects that match the European
definition of 'park' - which is an extensively human-sculpted landscape
chiefly for visual enjoyment.)


> > Note that it (IMHO correctly) explicitly mentions and excludes urban
> forests.
> See Las Wolski example at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park?uselang=en <
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park?uselang=en>
>
> LoL!  " Forest within a city. This is not a park, as greenery is not fully
> controlled"
> Most of the Seattle Parks would not be parks, then. Also, that national
> parks are " Parks in isolated, rural locations covering large, usually wild
> areas" is not true, see https://www.nps.gov/subjects/urban/index.htm
>

Quite possibly. Are the things in question nature reserves? In any case, in
an earlier thread discussing
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/390260 there was quite a
broad consensus that they are at least protected areas, and tagging them as
such should be relatively non-controversial. There's also a proposal in
process at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:_Named_protection_class_for_protected_areas
that
needs some final tidying before I can call for a vote. (I expect it also to
be relatively non-controversial; nobody likes the numeric protect_class
that we have today.)


> > 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.
>
> Our county sometimes requires developers to provision for green space. A
> friend of mine recently bought a house, and their owners association is
> currently collecting ideas for theirs.
>

Yes, If these conservation easements for green space are private, I simply
mark them as `natural=wood` or whatever the appropriate land cover might
be, overlaid on the `landuse=residential`. If they're open to the public,
once again they become `leisure=nature_reserve`.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7391814 is an example of the latter,
where the developer was required to grant the township a public-access
green space easement. I mapped part of the landcover as well. (I usually
don't bother with mapping landcover, since when I render maps, I get it
from other sources, but I make an occasional exception to micromap nature
reserves or neighbourhoods.)

(Remaining discussion about micro-protected areas snipped.)

It is obvious that in multiple areas of the USA, these parks that are not
'parks' by the European definition are of intense local interest. If UK
English is the official language of OSM, we may lack appropriate tagging,
because the UK doesn't have very many features like them and doesn't really
have a phrase to describe them that is succinct enough to use as a tag.

If there is a local community of mappers that does have an intense interest
in including a feature of a given type, it is profoundly disrespectful to
that community to suggest that the feature ought not to be mapped. In this
particular case - which everyone on this list knows I've been trying to
address for at least a couple of years now - I strongly suspect that there
is a fundamental objection in some quarters to mapping these 'parks' - no
matter how much local interest they've generated.

I'm not sure that I've retained all the emails, but when I did the import
of New York City watershed recreation areas, I saw the same arguments -
culminating with 'lack of field verifiability.'  When that argument reached
the height of absurdity, I'd posted examples of the signs posted at
intervals on the areas' boundaries (such as
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14018132286). One of the regular
objectors - I forget which - emailed me and stated firmly that since there
was no continuous marking of the boundary (such as a fence) the boundary
was still not verifiable, and the area could therefore still not be mapped;
he said that the only way it could be included in OSM was to map the
individual signs and ignore the area for which they are a demarcation.

This argument made it clear to me that at least some individuals on this
list are opposed 

[Talk-us] weeklyOSM #480 2019-09-24-2019-09-30

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 480,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/12433/

Enjoy! 

Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in 
to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about 
how to write a post here: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

weeklyOSM? 
who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

[Michael Patrick]

 > Case 1:  http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png
 Two small coastal areas that
look a bit like rock outcroppings. It is hard to imagine to me situation
where it would be leisure=park.

See https://www.nytimes.com/2018/ 
10/01/technology/california- beach-access-khosla.html
It isn't hard to imagine if you are a surfer, kayaker, canoist, fisherman.
These parks although they seem small are hugely important because they
provide public access to the water and shoreline below a certain tideline.
They are also frequently mentioned in fishing regulations. I don't know
exactly where this example is, but it's quite possible it might be the only
way to access miles of beach at low tide which would otherwise locked out
by private property. In Montana, for instance, you can float or wade any
stream below the high water mark. In Seattle, there are what appear to be
merely street ends that kayakers use to launch from.

> Case 2: > http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case2.png
>  I am unfamiliar with CPAD 2018a and SCCGIS v5.

If you are mapping California, it covers these issues. Other states and
counties have published definitions.

> Is there a good reason to expect that their classification matches OSM
classification of objects?

No it it would not. CPAD was was put together built by consensus by
thousands of people from community groups, environmental NGOs, local
governments, and defined by classification experts that cross walked across
hundreds of definitions provided by the stakeholders. It incorporates
everybody's definition of a 'park', not just a couple of lines from a
dictionary.

> "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.

In Seattle, there are efforts to un-improve certain parks to restore them
as close as possible to native conditions, especially for salmon run
restoration, wildlife corridors, and plant species preservation.

> Note that it (IMHO correctly) explicitly mentions and excludes urban
forests.
See Las Wolski example at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park?uselang=en <
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park?uselang=en>

LoL!  " Forest within a city. This is not a park, as greenery is not fully
controlled"
Most of the Seattle Parks would not be parks, then. Also, that national
parks are " Parks in isolated, rural locations covering large, usually wild
areas" is not true, see https://www.nps.gov/subjects/urban/index.htm

I suspect that it may be situation here.
> 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.

Our county sometimes requires developers to provision for green space. A
friend of mine recently bought a house, and their owners association is
currently collecting ideas for theirs.

> Provided data - description and arterial is unable to distinguish between
a decorated park lot and a really small park. I would give low weight to
whatever it is officially considered as a county park

So here in Puget Sound, public lands and especially parks have been a focus
for over a hundred years ( Olmstead Brothers' 1903
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olmsted_parks_in_Seattle ), millions
of voters over decades deciding to taxing themselves for their county
government to establish parks, that county then designating those areas
according to the state laws, classifying and entering those boundaries into
one of the most accurate sophisticated 'open data' GIS systems in the
world. .

... and you would give their official definition 'low weight'?

> 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.

The rule of thumb is if the local ground truth calls it a park., it is a
park. And, at least for the USA, there are thousands of secondary sources,
starting with the National Map, state, county, metropolitan, and city web
maps, NGO web maps.

> technically a "park" in some county GIS system, doesn't mean we have to
call it a park in OSM,

Of course not. Which makes a statement in itself about the ongoing
usefulness of OSM for data consumers and even ordinary people. While the
rest of the global spatial community is moving together and reconciling the
differences between spatial data models  like the EU Inspire effort ), OSM
does allow you the freedom to enter whatever you want even if it doesn't
match the the local community. Hmmm ... we need a new phrase, like 'Crowd
Source Imperialism' or 'Open Hegemony' or some such. :-)

> and the idea that any patch of earth with three
> trees on it and two