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

(I'll try that again, without the link syntax that got scrubbed). Apologies for length, yet this is long and requires words. > brad wrote: > I like this > (what Joseph Eisenberg wrote) > better than calling a state park a national park. Tagging them state parks > with the national park tag is

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

Apologies for length, yet this is long and requires words.brad wrote:I like this(what Joseph Eisenberg wrote)better than calling a state park a national park.  Tagging them state parks with the national park tag is an abstract concept that will just result in confusion.Brad, I "like it," too

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

I like this better than calling a state park a national park. Tagging them state parks with the national park tag is an abstract concept that will just result in confusion.   If the consensus is to tag them the same then I suggest depracting the national park tag and coming up with something

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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 >

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

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 >

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

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

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

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

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

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: >

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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? We have two in New York, quite a few in California, some in other states. Do we wish to keep these as they are? Do we rough out

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

On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 2:43 PM OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > 1) As states are as sovereign as the federal government (for purposes of > saying "what a park is around here"), the tag boundary=national_park has > rather widely been applied to state parks and state-park like lands. (I know >

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

Oops, I meant landuse=recreation_ground. (Not landuse=recreation_area). My apologies. 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

James Umbanhowar wrote: > Just to throw another curveball in here, there is also > leisure=nature_reserve which is frequently (occasionally?) used for the > city/county parks that are less structured and used for hiking and > nature appreciation. Thanks, James. Reiterating, when I say "Existing

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

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

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

Just to throw another curveball in here, there is also leisure=nature_reserve which is frequently (occasionally?) used for the city/county parks that are less structured and used for hiking and nature appreciation. On Sun, 2019-04-28 at 08:48 -0500, Aaron Forsythe wrote: > On 4/26/2019 9:49 PM,

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

On Apr 28, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Josh Lee wrote: > Where is the consensus or vote? The wiki page says "Status: de facto" > which implies that the wiki page should document *actual usage* and > not some sort of idealist, narrow viewpoint. Perhaps this is where I throw up my hands in exasperation.

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

On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 12:10 PM OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > Does OSM tag these leisure=park? "We" (the people, the Departments of > Parks...) do, yet should we in OSM? This IS talk-us; a major reason I > brought this up here is that USA park tagging drifts from elsewhere as "more >

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

> Jmapb wrote: > ...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. I would

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

On 4/26/2019 9:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: >> Other than that I can't think of any tags that would be applicable to >> these sorts of situations. We tend to tag the regulations themselves, >> not the extent to which they're adhered to. Certainly just calling it a >> park because kids play

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

On 4/26/2019 9:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: Other than that I can't think of any tags that would be applicable to these sorts of situations. We tend to tag the regulations themselves, not the extent to which they're adhered to. Certainly just calling it a park because kids play there

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

24 Apr 2019, 23:05 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > TL;DR - Tag the land use, not the land ownership. A city, town, > county, or state park may be virtually indistinguishable urban green > spots, recreation grounds, nature reserves, whatever. The level of > government that manages them may be of

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

On 4/25/2019 8:39 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > A hazy sort-of-emerging along with this is wider recognition that a proto_park thingy exists. And on Fri Apr 26 22:44:56 UTC 2019, Jmapb replied: Sounds like a good case for some lifecycle prefixes -- proposed:leisure=park or

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

On 4/25/2019 8:39 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: A hazy sort-of-emerging along with this is wider recognition that a proto_park thingy exists. Put it in the planning departments "bin" for "department of parks budget, depending how much we convert protected_area into human-leisure-activity

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

Doug Peterson wrote (about "Parks in the USA..."): > It is just that there is so much variety to deal with. I agree, it proves frustrating from an OSM perspective. I believe partly what happened is OSM started in the UK, where British English is spoken and "typically British" concepts

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

OSM Volunteer stevea writes: > I'll try to be brief, but there's a decade of history. The > leisure=park wiki recently improved to better state it means "an > urban/municipal" park, while boundary=national_park (or perhaps > leisure=nature_reserve, maybe boundary=protected_area) works on large,

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

To be honest, I have a level of indifference to improvements here because I have seen so much variety or exceptions to the rule. In the area that I live there are state parks that have been turned into city / suburban parks. There is a city / urban park that has been turned into a state park.

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

On Apr 24, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: (a LOT about parks! thanks, Kevin!) > TL;DR I tried to be brief, sorry if I wasn't. > - Tag the land use, not the land ownership. A city, town, > county, or state park may be virtually indistinguishable urban green > spots, recreation grounds,

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

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 10:33 PM OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > > I'll try to be brief, but there's a decade of history. The leisure=park wiki > recently improved to better state it means "an urban/municipal" park, while > boundary=national_park (or perhaps leisure=nature_reserve, maybe >

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

A brief update: I have blown the dust off of a relevant wiki, https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States_Public_Lands , started over eight years ago and hardly touched since then. As originally written, this addressed federal (admin_level=2) public lands only. Mainly, it still does,