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