> Jmapb <[email protected]> wrote: > ...if I saw a playground on a map > and then arrived there and found it was just an empty lot or an > undeveloped bit of land, I would find fault with that map. So if these > places (kids play here but it's unofficial) are to be mapped, I'd > suggest different tagging.
I would find fault with that map, too. Our leisure=playground clearly states "Often they provide equipment..." but maybe "often" could be better stated "nearly always." That's my experience, though I hesitate to re-write the wiki. Full disclosure, I did just propose on leisure=playground's Talk page that we add two simple words, "and schools" to describe areas where playgrounds are found, as lots of schools micro-map their campus as an OSM introduction. Giving a wiki-nod to playgrounds explicitly being found at schools seems welcoming. > If recreation really is the primary human activity in these areas, you > might consider landuse=recreation_ground -- though the way I read the > wiki, it sounds like the intended use is a little more formal than the > situations you're describing. Yes, I considered recreation_ground as making the "Existing 4" actually 5. However, recreation_ground's wiki has a note in the See Also section that says "in many cases area is both recreation ground and a park. In such cases usual tagging is to add just leisure=park." So while recreation_ground is a specific tag for specific uses, there are conflations to park which are both appropriate and recognized in the wiki. So we sort of have "Existing 4-1/2." There are no quick and easy ways to neatly put everything into buckets! Aaron Forsythe <idnwys at gmail.com> wrote: ...that he disagrees with my interpretation (not strict definition) of "kids play here." To be clear, I am 100% in agreement with our wiki definition of playground as "a children's playground. These are outdoor (sometimes indoor) areas for children to play...". The wiki definition's second sentence aligns with my interpretation/characterization, but it is not a definition of (only) what is included in the set, it is an elastic "these are also included" characterization of the set. As I said, semantics can be tricky. Aaron also wrote: > On another note, there are places defined as “city parks” here that are no > more than land that can't really be used for anything. For instance, a lot > in a subdivision that’s used for storm drainage is labeled as a nature park. > It's due to the fact they planted native plants on the lot to attract > wildlife. You would not know it's a "park" if you didn't read the small sign > stating so. It just looks like an overgrown, unleveled lot. I've also noticed that land next to creeks, for drainage, which is too steep to build on, which sometimes floods...is frequently included in what municipalities/park agencies "call" parks, or manage as what might someday become a park (the "proto_park" concept I mentioned). I've also seen "walkways" which are little more than a path next to a drainage (which does contain/attract native plants, frogs, birds), yet might be as little as ten feet wide but go on for hundreds of feet, and this is called a "park." Does OSM tag these leisure=park? "We" (the people, the Departments of Parks...) do, yet should we in OSM? This IS talk-us; a major reason I brought this up here is that USA park tagging drifts from elsewhere as "more generous with the tag." Yet the tag has recently become more precise, narrowing it from how it is often used in the USA. Thanks to all who contribute to the discussion, SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
