Re: [Talk-us] Parks, again

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

On Jan 3, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> I think the National Park term causes a lot of problems.   As I see it,
> there are two kinds of places:
> 
>  1) a natural area with some accomodation for human use, which is mostly
>  natural except for a few bits.
> 
>  2) a semi-natural area which has grass and trees (instead of
>  concrete), but is fairly manicured.  In this way it is more like a
>  maintained garden than wilderness..
> 
> Both of these exist at various scales.

I hear you.  I'm listening.  This is all true.  There are also 3), 4) and many, 
many others.  Yes.

Our definition of "park" (both as humans and in OSM) is quite elastic, let's 
face it.

As you say "feel like Type 2" I think is where it fuzzies in my mind.  Parks go 
to 3, 4, even 11 and beyond.  Parks have a wide range of "experiences" besides 
1 and 2.

> A "conservation area" in my town might be only 100 acres.  You are in
> the forest, with just a cleared trail and blazes.  But at the entrance,
> there is a dirt parking lot and a sign with a map.  This is a type 1
> area with a very small (enough for 10 cars) part that almost feels a
> little type 2 (except the parking lot is barely usable), but it's so
> small we just call it type 1.

Again, I hear this, this is true, I nod my head in agreement.  There is what we 
experience in the real world and yes, that maps directly onto a tag in OSM.  
Park is that.  States use it.  Nations use it.  "Come camp here for the night 
or a week" places which are commercial use it.  It is elastic in the real world 
and many use it, as we call myriad of them by using the name park in our speech 
as a noun.  It is a wide and flexible concept in human thinking, directly 
applied to all kinds of places around the world.  By billions of us.  
Frequently.

> Whether anybody (administrator of thing or not) uses the work Park is
> not relevant at all.

Mmm, no.  We (humanity, including administrators and the people) mean something 
as we use the word "park" together in wide harmony.  That is (at least partly!) 
why we tag with the word "park."

Yes, there are "local parks with benches and grass in our city."  Yes, there 
are "national parks."  We're only up to two, right there.  Then you get to 
their various scales.  There are many more than two.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential vandalism in Northern California (Pokémon Go?)

[Greg Troxel]

I think the National Park term causes a lot of problems.   As I see it,
there are two kinds of places:

  1) a natural area with some accomodation for human use, which is mostly
  natural except for a few bits.

  2) a semi-natural area which has grass and trees (instead of
  concrete), but is fairly manicured.  In this way it is more like a
  maintained garden than wilderness..

Both of these exist at various scales.

Point 1 is leisure=nature_reserve, more or less.  If there is legal
protection (which is separate from what's there now), it should get
some sort of "landuse=conservation", "boundary=protected_area", or the
special kind of protected_area with an implied leisure=nature_reserve
known as boundary=national_park.

Point 2 is leisure=park.

In New England, in type 1 you are probably going to get ticks, and in
type 2 you probably aren't.

One of the real difficulties is that in areas athat are type 1, such as
a lot of state parks, and national parks, there are significant
sub-areas, often bigger than many town parks, that are very much type 2.

As an example, in Yellowstone, the 6 or so villages where there are
hotels, general stores, maybe a gas station, places with picnic tables,
boardwalks, feel like type 2.   But once you leave those pretty small
areas, you are almost in wilderness.

A "conservation area" in my town might be only 100 acres.  You are in
the forest, with just a cleared trail and blazes.  But at the entrance,
there is a dirt parking lot and a sign with a map.  This is a type 1
area with a very small (enough for 10 cars) part that almost feels a
little type 2 (except the parking lot is barely usable), but it's so
small we just call it type 1.

Whether anybody (administrator of thing or not) uses the work Park is
not relevant at all.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential vandalism in Northern California (Pokémon Go?)

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

On Jan 3, 2018, at 4:00 AM, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> Currently the wiki page 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark defines an OSM 
> "leisure=park" using a few words, and illustrates it with a picture of part 
> of Central Park in New York.  It then goes on to say that "leisure=park" 
> shouldn't be used for national parks.  It uses Yosemite at 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=10/37.8230/-119.5060 as an example national 
> park ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1643367 for info ).
> 
> I'd suggest that the state and county parks in CA such as for example Joseph 
> D Grant https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3003169 are less like Central 
> Park than they are like Yosemite.   They might not be close enough to warrant 
> a "boundary=national_park" tag, and some other tag (some sort of 
> protected_area?) might be more appropriate, but they're definitely not an OSM 
> "leisure=park" in a "does it quack like a duck" sense as per 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging.  On Joseph D Grant someone 
> has added a "park:type=county_park" tag to try and help data consumers 
> distinguish it from other "leisure=park"s, but that doesn't really say 
> anything about what it's like, just who looks after it.

While this is talk-us and not argue-us, I don't want an argument; it is dialog 
that allows us to reach consensus.  I quote exactly those "few words" in our 
wiki to define a park:  "A park is an area of open space provided for 
recreational use, usually designed and in semi-natural state with grassy areas, 
trees and bushes. Parks are often but not always municipal."  (There is a bit 
more about being fenced and/or closed at night, not germane here).  I think we 
both can agree that Joseph D Grant Park (JDG) in California meets that 
definition.  The photo of Central Park in NYC is something we can also agree is 
exemplary of what is meant by a park, but any such example will necessarily be 
different in many ways from every other park, large or small, municipal or 
otherwise.  I emphasize our wiki says "parks are not always municipal."  This 
is the case with JDG, so I re-affirm here and now its leisure=park tag as 
correct.  Having "Park" in its name seems an obvious companion to this 
statement.

Yes, there is an additional section about "National Parks."  It says "Parks in 
isolated, rural locations (namely areas called "National Parks") are 
(different)."  While I cannot disagree that National Parks ARE "different" than 
the implied definition above (they have a national operator instead of 
municipal, they offer outstanding, world-class opportunities to recreate and 
enjoy natural beauty...) the contradiction implied is not exclusionary.  In 
other words, just because national parks are implied as different from 
"municipal" parks (those might be state, county, city, neighborhood, religious 
and/or private) it does not mean that a large municipal park that might "more 
resemble" a national park isn't a park.  A major issue I have with your 
approach is that "in isolated rural locations" is a slightly fuzzy definition, 
so we might never agree on where a "hard disambiguation" between these two 
(rather arbitrary, in fact) categories bifurcates.

Having seriously scratched my head about this for almost 9 years, I noticed 
that problem/ambiguities seem to stem from this rather artificial bifurcation 
into exactly TWO categories of park:  "national" and "otherwise, not national." 
 This is clearly over-simplistic given the world's myriad parks and their 
administration.  It is destined to fail both in the minds of OSM volunteers who 
"want to do the right thing" (tag parks properly) as well as renderers trying 
to shoehorn all parks into "park" or "national park," when there are so many 
other park-like or actual park-like entities.  In 2009, (along with Apo42's 
useful habit of tagging with "park_type=county_park" (et al)), I posited the 
idea that park boundary rendering could benefit from different colors of 
dashing depending on the jurisdiction of the park.  Quoting from my wiki user 
page,

"This would be similar to how boundary=national_park creates a dashed-green 
boundary, but with different colored dashing for different levels of 
jurisdiction, from local playgrounds to national parks, or even UN World 
Heritage sites. There are many complex overlapping park boundaries of various 
levels of jurisdiction in California, especially in very far northern 
California. The intent is to communicate these in a way that the OSM community 
both accepts and finds pleasing to the eye so that even map consumers 
uninitiated with the sometimes subtle semiotics of cartographic jurisdiction 
can visually parse complex park boundaries with ease."

As that strays a LONG way from Pokémon Go Vandalism (PGV), I acknowledge it may 
be time to break out this discussion of how to tag JDG into another (titled) 
thread.

We agree that additional tags of