> Mapper 1: "This park doesn't exist." Mapper 2: "It is undeveloped land > managed by County Parks in a sort of proto park state. How would YOU map > this?" >
I find that both mappers here make valid points. Yes they do. Generally, in times > where every teenager maps their back porch as a park in the hope of > attracting Pokemon, I am leaning towards being careful with parks; Yes. (Although metadata hygiene is a valid goal in itself, one that is being abused needs extra flossing and irrigation.) > I would love to have a rule of thumb that says "if it doesn't have a name > (or if it's not more than xxxx sq ft) then it's not a park, it is just > some trees" or so. In many other matters we say we map the signage. That is not a bad place to start here. So a rule of it needs at least a name and/or a physical sign would be internally consistent and predictably OSMish. (And no, "Cabrillo Park Court Undeveloped Tract" is not a Park name, it's a lot/tract name. It's a Lot.) An exception to allow for un-named de-facto parks when someone (official or guerilla) is engaged in improvements and maintenance of the de-facto park would be wise, to cover the corner cases where it's legally a vacant lot but in reality it's a public good. (I type while looking out the window at one such, and no, it's not my doing.) There is no useful SQ FT minimum on official parks. Guinness and Portland Parks (ORE) recognizes a 3 SQ FT park as officially smallest and official: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill_Ends_Park 452 sq in (0.292 m2) (After 20+ years, this guerrilla park was recognized by the city, and now even has lilliputian signage. Keep Portland Weird folks!) Just because an area of a few 100 sq ft is > technically a "park" in some county GIS system, doesn't mean we have to > call it a park in OSM, Right. Landuse / land tenurage imports are interesting sources for alternate basemap layers, but should not be confused with primary mapping; and entries under landuse / tenurage should not be confused with Amenities. Parks Dept may not have the budget or approved plans to en-park-ify everything that is transferred to their control immediately. Transfer of Ownership doesn't magically confer signage, waste cans, benches, curfew gates, lighting, and other improvements. If Parks Dept lists it as a public amenity on their public website - not just the GIS - then it can be a park even if it isn't yet named or signed. and the idea that any patch of earth with three > trees on it and two cars parked on it is a "park" because it is "open to > the public" and "has amenities" sounds very far-fetched to me. > I Agree. Mapper 2 asks a good question, how to map the proto-park; this is a hint for where the Wiki needs more wikignome work. Ownership by County Parks should be reflected as land-use/tenurage/restrictions; it does not imply an amenity. De facto public use does not make an un-tended acre a Park. -- Bill Ricker [email protected] https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
