It seems that plain language can be used here, and from the Oxford
dictionary, a park is:
" A large public garden or area of land used for recreation."
It doesn't restrict, as the leisure:park wiki does, to smaller, urban
human-sculpted parks.
In CO the county, city (some very large parks), and state parks are
tagged as leisure:park. This makes sense from the local dialect
perspective as well as the Oxford english.
Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for
recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?
Sorry I'm chiming in late to the discussion, I've been travelling and
mostly unplugged for a week.
On 4/29/19 5:37 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
The real problem is that we have two linguistic traditions: one is plain
langauge, and one is tagging tokens. People keep blurring them, and of
course this is going to continue. We end up with having to explain
"Just becuase it says 'Foo Park' doesn't mean it's a park." If we had
#define LEISURE_PARK 0x451
and we were talking about if something were a LEISURE_PARK then it would
be clearer about plain language vs tagging tokens.
OSM Volunteer stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> writes:
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.
I think that's a correct assessment. Except that we have to be careful
about "recreation" -- a place that is largely soccer and baseball fields
is recreation_ground. If you mean walking around, then agreed.
In Massachusetts, I'd say an interesting data point in distinguishing
"park" vs "nature_reserve" is that in a park you are not that likely to
pick up ticks (ixodes scapularis), and in a nature_reserve it is very
likely. But that's just a proxy for "sculpted" vs "natural".
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?
I don't really follow "going forward" and "inevitable". If you mean:
We the mailinglist more or less agree, to the extent we ever do, that
things that don't meet definition above should not be leisure=park,
and we should tag those things appropriately, both for new objects,
and people fixing old objects.
then that sounds right.
Another question is: If we didn't have the special national_park tag,
how would they be tagged? I would say that most would be
leisure=nature_reserve overall, with perhaps some small segments as
leisure=park, and then a few messy cases (Dry Tortugas, maybe Mesa
Verde). I don't seriously expect us to get rid of the national_park
tag, so that's a moot point.
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
