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 [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
