On 4/25/2019 8:39 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
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.
Sounds like a good case for some lifecycle prefixes -- proposed:leisure=park or planned:leisure=park. (No one seems to know exactly what the difference is, or if one of these is further along in the lifecycle than the other. Regardless, proposed:*=* is much more widely used.) Once park construction has begun, construction:leisure=park. And finally just leisure=park when it opens.
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.
We have access=permissive, but I don't think a hole in a fence really counts as "permissive." (I think de facto access to an area with no fence/no signage/no enforcement *could* be called permissive.) Other than that I can't think of any tags that would be applicable to these sorts of situations. We tend to tag the regulations themselves, not the extent to which they're adhered to. Certainly just calling it a park because kids play there doesn't seem consistent with OSM standards. We don't raise the speed limit in places where everyone speeds, or tag bicycle=yes on ways where they're prohibited but frequently used. Jason _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
