OSM Volunteer stevea <[email protected]> writes: > I'll try to be brief, but there's a decade of history. The > leisure=park wiki recently improved to better state it means "an > urban/municipal" park, while boundary=national_park (or perhaps > leisure=nature_reserve, maybe boundary=protected_area) works on large, > national (and state or provincial in North America) parks. As the > sharper wiki focus means a "city_park" (a sometimes-found park:type > value, I've written brand new wiki on park:type) certainly qualifies > as a leisure=park, this leaves county_parks (and their ilk, like > county_beaches) in a quirky "how best do we tag these now?" quandary.
I think Kevin has it right that we should tag primarily by something about land use, not by owne/operator, although it's fine to tag operator. I think the entire "national_park" tag is unfortunate, as it wraps up a lot of concepts that vary by country, and makes people understand things when they don't. In the US, it should mean "preserve the land while allowing access and enjoyment", there is a notion that the place is relatively distinguished, and it doesn't really have a connotation of size. While "urban/municpal park" and "(USish) national park" are two things, there is another kind of thing, which I label conservation land, typically not so urban, and not wilderness. Around me, there are a number of places, some tens of acres, some hundreds, where there are dirt hiking trails, some blazes, and some crude parking areas, and that's about it. If anything, these are closest to US national parks in concept, except that preserving the land is a higher priority than allowing human enjoyment. I tag them as landuse=conservation leisure=nature_reserve. > I can see tag leisure=park persisting on a lot of county_parks for > some time (forever?), yet it seems OSM's worldwide view of "park" > excludes them (and we tag boundary=national_park on state and national > parks). I don't understand this. As I see it OSM's "park" is about an area that is relatively manicured and taken care of, certainly green compared to pavement, but not really in a natural state. As in: if all the humans walked away and you came back 10 or 20 years later, how different would it be? A city park would look totally different, and the semirural conservation areas would look much the same except the trails would be indistinct and have trees fallen across them. I would expect US counties to have both city parks (think Central Park in NY) and things that are almost wilderness areas or wildlife refuges, plus everything in between. I don't see level8 vs level6 management as important (or even level4 or level2). _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
