Open Space implies much less development than a park, usually. It's usually
rendered on maps as a lighter color than parks. I've found some legal
definitions
here:
http://www.sonomatrails.org/docs/cagenpln.htm
The next levels of protected land in the U.S. are Wilderness and Federal
Wilderness.
US Federal Wilderness, for example, is designated by Congress, and is not
permitted
to have permanent roads, vehicular traffic, etc.
http://wilderness.nps.gov/faqnew.cfm
I think that map users here generally expect that Open Space and Wilderness
areas
will be rendered differently than the more-developed parks. I would advocate
the use
of a couple of new landuse values, 'open_space' and 'wilderness'. I don't
know
how this scales when you start considering these kinds of legal and cultural
designations across the entire globe.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:26:05AM -0800, Nathan Mixter wrote:
Thanks for the response. The area in question is land that usually is near a
county or state park in the U.S. Usually the area will be about the size of a
regular park or a little larger. Sometimes the borders of the land could be
touching the park borders. This land is general purpose land, i.e. hiking,
biking, horse riding etc. The area doesn't include dense trees, so there is
no logging or anything. It's pretty much set aside for its natural beauty.
The specific land I was looking at was in California listed under
openspaceauthority.org. Thanks.
--
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] open space land
May I ask which country that's in? For example in the US (where I am) there
are several different types of open space land. National Forests, National
Parks, State Parks, State Forests to name a few. All of those have different
regulations when it comes to land use (whether you can cut wood, etc.) for
example. leisure = park may not automatically apply to all of them.
Now this is in the US. I know that Germany has, for example, state and
national forests which are typically much more groomed than US national
forests. Back when I lived in one of them (I'm not even kidding) at the end
of the 90s, they appeared to be more like really large parks than forests, at
least to my North American eye. I would personally see it fit to tag those as
leisure = park, but don't take this for advice as I don't map stuff in
Germany and german mappers would obviously know better.
So before giving more precise opinions, I would say we would have to know
which jurisdiction you are in, what those open space land actually look like
and how they're actually used.
My two cents.
Charles
Original message
The government sets aside land for open space land.
These usually have specific and boundaries. Are they
worth adding? Should they be treated as leisure=park
in OSM?
___
---
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
