It may be emerging that tagging boundary=protected_area (where correct) where
leisure=park now exists and we delete it, begins to supersede leisure=park on
many North American now-called-parks. I think that's OK, maybe even overdue.
To be clear, there are plenty of "we now call them parks" which are more like
protected_area boundary areas or maybe "it is what it is today, nothing more."
A hazy sort-of-emerging along with this is wider recognition that a proto_park
thingy exists. Put it in the planning departments "bin" for "department of
parks budget, depending how much we convert protected_area into
human-leisure-activity in the next budget or ten." Maybe never, humanity and
this planet can hope. Hey, this could be a park someday if and as we improve
it.
Ech, did I just say that's what we 'mericans do with some of our landuse
planning? Maybe. I try not to get political here, rather, I endeavor to
simply tag well. I've seen kids on bikes go under fences and around things and
treat "certain areas" just like an admittedly fully raw and completely
undeveloped park, even though it isn't one. Sometimes with respect, simply
hiking around. What is that? Humans being human. We should map those,
accurately.
I think the greatest thing to "shake out" of this so far is that the
leisure=park tag can (and should be) frequently be dismissed in preference to
boundary=protected_area. This alone will assert a great deal of sanity back
into things around here. Whether we invent a tag called proto_park ('cause
there are such things, the city council just hasn't budgeted or spent the money
to build it into a more fully human-leisure-place, yet).
Ahhh. The more people talk about this (leisure=park tagging going away from
where it doesn't belong), the more it feels like consensus.
SteveA
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
