Open Space implies much less development than a "park", usually. It's usually rendered on maps as a lighter color than parks. I've found some legal definitions here:
http://www.sonomatrails.org/docs/cagenpln.htm The next levels of protected land in the U.S. are "Wilderness" and "Federal Wilderness". US Federal Wilderness, for example, is designated by Congress, and is not permitted to have permanent roads, vehicular traffic, etc. http://wilderness.nps.gov/faqnew.cfm I think that map users here generally expect that Open Space and Wilderness areas will be rendered differently than the more-developed "parks". I would advocate the use of a couple of new "landuse" values, 'open_space' and 'wilderness'. I don't know how this scales when you start considering these kinds of legal and cultural designations across the entire globe. On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:26:05AM -0800, Nathan Mixter wrote: > > Thanks for the response. The area in question is land that usually is near a > county or state park in the U.S. Usually the area will be about the size of a > regular park or a little larger. Sometimes the borders of the land could be > touching the park borders. This land is general purpose land, i.e. hiking, > biking, horse riding etc. The area doesn't include dense trees, so there is > no logging or anything. It's pretty much set aside for its natural beauty. > The specific land I was looking at was in California listed under > openspaceauthority.org. Thanks. > > -- > > > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] open space land > > > > May I ask which country that's in? For example in the US (where I am) there > are several different types of open space land. National Forests, National > Parks, State Parks, State Forests to name a few. All of those have different > regulations when it comes to land use (whether you can cut wood, etc.) for > example. leisure = park may not automatically apply to all of them. > > > > Now this is in the US. I know that Germany has, for example, state and > national forests which are typically much more groomed than US national > forests. Back when I lived in one of them (I'm not even kidding) at the end > of the 90s, they appeared to be more like really large parks than forests, at > least to my North American eye. I would personally see it fit to tag those as > leisure = park, but don't take this for advice as I don't map stuff in > Germany and german mappers would obviously know better. > > > > So before giving more precise opinions, I would say we would have to know > which jurisdiction you are in, what those open space land actually look like > and how they're actually used. > > > > My two cents. > > > > Charles > > > > ---- Original message ---- > > > > > The government sets aside land for open space land. > > > These usually have specific and boundaries. Are they > > > worth adding? Should they be treated as leisure=park > > > in OSM? > > >________________ > > >_______________________________________________ > > --- > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
