We map what is, not what was. The historical context is interesting but is largely irrelevant for deciding what is and is not a common in current UK context.
You're correct to bring up access, though. To me the simplest rule of thumb is that a park is fenced, allowing the authorities to control access, while a common is unfenced allowing anyone to access it at any time. On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, 13:05 David Woolley, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16/03/2019 12:54, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote: > > Perhaps leisure=park, park=common? > > I think any use of common for such a feature fails to understand the > historical and political context of commons (one still referenced by the > Creative Commons licenses). > > "Common" was about ownership rather than about being a type of landuse. > > Incidentally, most "public" parks actually have permissive access, not > public access. I'm not sure if a real common would have public access, > or whether it would be restricted to the local community. (Creative > Commons generalisation to intellectual property assumes public access.) > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
