Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

Mateusz Konieczny wrote: in reply to the 1 Oct 2019, 16:26 post by Frederik Ramm : > Case 1: > http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png > Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings. > It is hard to imagine to me situation where > it would be leisure=park. That is because

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

Hi, I guess we have (as so often) a problem with unconscious cultural bias here. Property rights in Europe are generally much more limited than in the US, e.g. in all but one(?) German states all forests are by law public access, regardless of ownership. Also open farmland, meadows, etc.,

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 2:40 AM Michael Patrick wrote: > > "It is a park in the sense of American English as of 2019. Whether it is > > a park according to OSM may be debatable, as it is an "unimproved" park, > > meaning it is under development as to improvements like restrooms and > > other

[Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

> Case 1: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings. It is hard to imagine to me situation where it would be leisure=park. See https://www.nytimes.com/2018/

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

1 Oct 2019, 16:26 by frede...@remote.org: > > Case 1: > > http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png > > Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings. > It is hard to imagine to me situation where it would be leisure=park. > "zone=PR-PP" which was then interpreted as

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

At the rough level presented here, I think all of these could and probably should be validly tagged as leisure=park, particularly if a local mapper has tagged them as such.    I don't think it makes sense to limit the size, that seems to be micromanaging (no pun intended :)). Sometimes people

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

All of these cases are somewhat deceptive and deserve more research. In cases 1, 3, and 4 - these areas are slivers or discontinuous areas from actual parks. Case 2 may also be a discontinuous area, but it's not as obvious as the other areas. My suggestion would be to zoom out a little bit and

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:04 PM Bill Ricker wrote: > In many other matters we say we map the signage. > That is not a bad place to start here. > So a rule of it needs at least a name and/or a physical sign would be > internally consistent and predictably OSMish. > An exception to allow for

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

On 10/1/2019 10:26 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Case 1: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings. Case 2: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case2.png The tree-covered green area in the middle of the image I certainly wouldn't tag

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

> Mapper 1: "This park doesn't exist." Mapper 2: "It is undeveloped land > managed by County Parks in a sort of proto park state. How would YOU map > this?" > I find that both mappers here make valid points. Yes they do. Generally, in times > where every teenager maps their back porch as a

[Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

Hi, the DWG has been called upon to mediate a conflict between mappers, and one small part of this conflict is the question of "when is a park a park". Some of you know the persons involved and some of you might *be* the persons involved but I would like to discuss this not on a personal level