On 10/1/2019 10:26 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Case 1: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings. Case 2: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case2.png The tree-covered green area in the middle of the image
I certainly wouldn't tag either of these as a leisure=park based on the aerial images, but I assume the mappers in question have some additional information. In particular, though, I'd look for designated public access (not just permissive) and some kind of actual leisure opportunities (not just "you can legally sit on the ground here"). I don't see evidence of those.
Case 3: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case3.png The highlighted area in the middle of the picture straddles a street and parts of an amenity=parking north and south of the street and seems to rather arbitrarily cut through the woodland at its northern edge.
I think this looks parky enough, as long as it's not signed in a way to prevent public use. Definitely has physical access, even parking, and it looks like you could sit on a picnic blanket or fly a kite, as long as it didn't get tangled in those power lines. But I'd be suspicious of both the northern and southern boundaries.
Case 4: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case4.png Red highlight is a "leisure=park" "zone=PR" (the latter probably left over from an import). Larger, green area that is mostly overlapping this "park" but also cutting an edge in the NW is natural=wood.
Nah, that's not a park. If someone wants to tag the operator or ownership or protection status, sure, tag away. If it's a future park, use a lifecycle prefix like proposed:leisure=park. ...Just my gut reactions, J _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
