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