Re: [talk-au] Consistent tagging of botanic gardens around Australia - leisure=park vs leisure=garden

[Daniel Graus]

With respect to gardens within gardens, you raise a good point as a devil's
advocate there... as a counterpoint though; if I was designing a map of
botanic gardens using OSM, I think it would be reasonable to assume or even
expect that most botanic gardens would have a series of smaller gardens
associated with them. Would it be smarter for our hypothetical botanical
garden map-maker to design their tools to look at each area's garden:type
and garden:style keys (assuming either is, present, accurate and correct?)
I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, but I'd assume it would be very unusual
for an area tagged with garden:type=botanical to contain a second area also
sharing that tag, whereas you'd probably expect to see examples of areas
that could be tagged with
garden:style=french, garden:type=show_garden, garden:type=arboretum
or  garden:style=rosarium inside of a botanical garden.

(apologies Andrew as well, I think I sent this to you twice, my
mailinglist-fu is a little unrefined.)

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 3:47 PM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

>
> One issue is this same tag leisure=garden is being used for both
> individual gardens and the whole garden grounds. For example the "Royal
> Botanic Gardens" in Sydney has a number of smaller named gardens like the
> "Rose Garden", "Herb Garden" etc. Someone building an app for these gardens
> might want to know which are the higher level gardens which probably have a
> website, contact number, etc. and the individual gardens inside. Currently
> you'd just need to guess based on the geometry being inside another.
>
> The advantage of tagging as leisure=park is that you no longer have an
> issue with the tag being used for two diferent things.
>
> On the other hand if I'm building a map I might want to render a flower
> icon for "gardens" and maybe a tree for a park. If we tag "Royal Botanic
> Gardens" as a park, I can't distinguish these gardens from a regular park.
>
> There's always going to be a fair amount of overlap, some gardens will
> have open spaces for leisure more like a park like
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3744999
>  and
> some parks will have some small gardens as part of the park like
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19603604, where you draw the line is
> always going to be uncertain.
>
> I still think Royal Botanic Gardens is more a garden than a park, because
> of the amount of work that goes on there towards maintaining the actual
> gardens, this is it's primary function. The fact that you could use a
> clearing to kick a ball around (more like a park) I think is a secondary
> function.
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Consistent tagging of botanic gardens around Australia - leisure=park vs leisure=garden

[Daniel Graus]

Recently, the Sydney Royal Botanic Gardens were changed from leisure=garden
to leisure=park. This change prompted some discussion (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/73984430) but no firm conclusions
really arose, with the gardens still being mapped as a park at this stage.


As botanic gardens are a reasonably common feature of major Australian
cities, I looked at other cases around Australia, and found that tagging on
these areas is quite inconsistent, with some being tagged as gardens such
as Melbourne’s Royal Botanic Gardens, the Adelaide Botanic Gardens and (up
until recently) Sydney’s Royal Botanic Gardens. Whereas, the Brisbane City
Botanic Gardens, the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens, and several others
are mapped as parks.


As the previously linked discussion highlighted, these spaces are quite
diverse in their use and could easily be interpreted as parks, but at the
same time, their design, function and general day to day use is
considerably more horticulture/botany focused when compared to (as some
examples) Hyde park in Sydney or the larger area of Kings Park in Perth.


Additionally (also as discussed in the link), the tag garden:type=botanical
descends in "tagging hierarchy" (whatever that is worth) from
leisure=garden. The notion that this tag should be removed from a
functional botanical garden or that it should sit alongside leisure=park
doesn’t seem like it’s correct.


Should all botanical gardens be changed to match one another? Is
leisure=park or leisure=garden more correct in some/the majority/all of
these cases?


Regards,

Daniel (WoodWoseWulf)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] As of 28th November, Pokemon Go in Australia has been displaying OSM as the world map

[Daniel Graus]

It may pay to be extra vigilant of new edits by new mappers in the coming
weeks.

The version of the map that is currently showing in Pokemon Go appears to
not be current, edits made after August this year are not appearing.
Licencing and copy write information for OSM has also now been added to the
"about" page in the Pokemon Go app.

In my experience, most mappers who have come to OSM due to Pokemon Go have
had good intentions and just needed a little guidance (as all newbies and
even long term mappers often need) but there are always a few who are
seeking to exploit the system.

As a pre-Pokemon Go casual OSM mapper and a Pokemon Go player, I am happy
to answer any questions that might help identify Pokemon Go edits that
might be incorrect.

Best wishes,

Daniel (WoodWoseWulf)
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au