On Apr 28, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Josh Lee <jlee...@gmail.com> wrote: > Where is the consensus or vote? The wiki page says "Status: de facto" > which implies that the wiki page should document *actual usage* and > not some sort of idealist, narrow viewpoint.
Perhaps this is where I throw up my hands in exasperation. Without exhaustively describing the threads, private missives, backchannel email discussions, hair-pulling exercises, now-stale imports (from when we had no Import Guidelines) and even flame-wars in the map (one in my area that has been a raging brush fire for a couple of weeks is now in truce/detente/notes-are-getting-resolved mode), "the consensus" has been evolving for the almost-decade I've been mapping here. This talk-us thread is intended to address what US tagging of leisure=park "should better be" going forward, recognizing there is plenty of "legacy tagging" usage of leisure=park, often in California. Some not-strictly-what-the-wiki-says and how leisure=park IS understood "around the OSM world" is certainly found in the US beyond California, that is quite true. So this topic isn't a fresh, clean sheet of paper, as much has been said and written. But much confusion/misunderstanding (and legacy tagging) exists across the USA. I agree that what our leisure=park wiki says, while it has been tightening up recently, isn't absolutely "actual usage," that isn't my fault, it is what thousands of contributors have tagged. And as I've said, my inclinations as to why this is so is because our leisure=park wiki wasn't strictly accurate (until recent attempts to make it accurate) likely combined with the American English usage of the word "park" to be more inclusive (of park-like areas often with "park" in their name) than the original OSM concept/usage of leisure=park, which we now better wiki-document than we did before. So, we now have better wiki (which feels fragile, as it is a new consensus, though it does appear to be "what we meant all along") AND we have legacy-tagging usage in the USA. Rather than asking for an audit trail of how we got here, may we look ahead to how we'll "better" tag areas (with the Existing 4 tags, not just leisure=park) going forward? I think we have "wrung out" (as largely irrelevant) the "government-level" semantic component as being unimportant (or we capture it with operator=* and/or owner=* tags), although using the specific example in the USA of "how do we tag a county park?" roughly asks this ticklish question — not because of "county" or that it is admin_level=6, but because county parks are often more-rural, larger, not-as-manicured "things" that we often call parks and which don't strictly meet how OSM means "leisure=park." So, what emerges is that going forward, leisure=park is as our wiki describes it (a smaller, urban-scale, human-sculpted place for leisure/recreation), EVEN THOUGH many areas which aren't this are now tagged this way. Going forward, NEW "parks" (in the USA) get this tag only as it is meant/now wiki-described, as we use the Existing 4 more properly. In other words, it is correct to use the Existing 4 INSTEAD of solely leisure=park when appropriate. Simultaneously, it is inevitable that many now-tagged-leisure=parks will have that tag changed to one of the other Existing 4. Yes? Onward, SteveA _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
