Re: [Talk-us] Someone from Boston, MA?

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:12 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:01 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I'm not a Bostonian, but I've been to Copley Place. > > Copley Place is a named building: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240501783 This local Bostonian concurs. This is one

Re: [Talk-us] Someone from Boston, MA?

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:01 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > I'm not a Bostonian, but I've been to Copley Place. > Copley Place is a named building: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240501783 more information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copley_Place - the building complex, in addition to the

Re: [Talk-us] Someone from Boston, MA?

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 10:40 PM Wolfgang Zenker wrote: > I tried to add the German Consulate General in Boston, MA, but could not > find the address "Three Copley Place, Boston, MA 02116" in > our data. That place is apparently somewhere near Boston University. > Anyone local who could check if

[Talk-us] Someone from Boston, MA?

Hi, I tried to add the German Consulate General in Boston, MA, but could not find the address "Three Copley Place, Boston, MA 02116" in our data. That place is apparently somewhere near Boston University. Anyone local who could check if this is a missing street name in our data? consulate

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] 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

[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

[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

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

[Talk-us] Private playgrounds (was Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type)

29 Apr 2019, 13:56 by g...@lexort.com: > It does mean that leisure=playground access=private is going to happen, > in gated community-ish places. But that's fine, I think. > Or in schools/kindergartens. (leisure=playground access=private is even supported by a special rendering in OSM Carto ).

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