Re: [Talk-GB] Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens & CROW Open Area land

[Rob Nickerson]

>
> Presumably these were the original conditions to get the funding? Having
> mapped Ardleigh Millennium Green since the start of this thread I know that
> has a playground, or at least “play equipment”. There are also photos of it
> on the parish council website[1]. So I'm guessing this has been built since
> the year 2000, but don't know.
>
> Ed
>
> [1] http://www.essexinfo.net/ardleighpc/photos/album?album_id=737769
>
>
>

Hi Ed,

I have had a quick search and have found some details on the charitable
trust for Ardleigh Millennium Green [A]. They describe that the land is to
be used for "INFORMAL RECREATIONAL PLAY". I guess this lines up with the
wikipedia article which I was a little bit too selective with my cut and
paste - the full line is:

"Another requirement of the original sponsors was that the land should not
be used for formal sporting and recreation areas, so that no pitches or
playground apparatus were to be built."

As you are aware the field next to Ardleigh Millenium Green includes a
formal sports pitch [B] and this field is not part of the Millenium Green.
It looks like the aim was to create a space for everyone, therefore the
requirement for no formal sporting and recreation areas were to stop it
from becoming another football field of skate park, etc..

[A]
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1073243&SubsidiaryNumber=0

[B] http://osm.org/go/0EHbSmnKJ-

Rob
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens & CROW Open Area land

[Ed Loach]

Rob wrote:

 

> The fact that the land is designated a millennium green means that
certain 

> conditions exist. Quoting from wikipedia:

> 

> * not more than 10% of the land should be made/left as hard areas

> * no buildings to be built on the land

> * the land should not be used for formal sporting and recreation
areas, so that 

> no pitches or playground apparatus were to be built

> * an area suitable for community events and celebrations.

 

Presumably these were the original conditions to get the funding?
Having mapped Ardleigh Millennium Green since the start of this
thread I know that has a playground, or at least “play equipment”.
There are also photos of it on the parish council website[1]. So I'm
guessing this has been built since the year 2000, but don't know.

 

Ed

 

[1] http://www.essexinfo.net/ardleighpc/photos/album?album_id=737769

 

 

 

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens & CROW Open Area land

[Rob Nickerson]

What problem? None really. Just trying to add some details to this aspect
of OSM. Although the funding is provided by the lottery the land has a
designation within central government. The fact that the land is designated
a millennium green means that certain conditions exist. Quoting from
wikipedia:

* not more than 10% of the land should be made/left as hard areas
* no buildings to be built on the land
* the land should not be used for formal sporting and recreation areas, so
that no pitches or playground apparatus were to be built
* an area suitable for community events and celebrations.

Thought this may be of interest for some people. Similar argument for CROW
Open Access Land, etc.. It shouldn't be too hard to add the details as most
of the MGs are mapped and the data is part of Natural Englands recent
release, thus it is simply a case of checking the 2 tally and applying a
tag. Any that don't match we can go and survey.

Rob


On 4 July 2012 16:33, SomeoneElse  wrote:

> rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> I think the whole area classifies as a park (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**
>> Millennium_Green ).
>>
>
> What problem are you actually trying to solve?
>
> Presumably whoever mapped the area originally would have picked
> appropriate tags for whatever components make up a particular Millennium
> Green, and if the whole is named something like "Chigley Millennium Green",
> you can assign a name to the area?
>
> It sounds like this is just another funding source, of which there are
> thousands.  I can't see a compelling need to group together all of the
> parks etc. created by Joseph Rowntree (http://osm.org/go/evpPy1bdP-- ,
> http://osm.org/go/evpa4H3oT-- etc), so why the National Lottery?
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens & CROW Open Area land

[SomeoneElse]

rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:


I think the whole area classifies as a park 
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Green).


What problem are you actually trying to solve?

Presumably whoever mapped the area originally would have picked 
appropriate tags for whatever components make up a particular Millennium 
Green, and if the whole is named something like "Chigley Millennium 
Green", you can assign a name to the area?


It sounds like this is just another funding source, of which there are 
thousands.  I can't see a compelling need to group together all of the 
parks etc. created by Joseph Rowntree (http://osm.org/go/evpPy1bdP-- , 
http://osm.org/go/evpa4H3oT-- etc), so why the National Lottery?


Cheers,
Andy

(also to the list this time!)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens & CROW Open Area land

[SomeoneElse]

rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:


But can you really call Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens and CROW 
Open Access Areas "reserves"?


I've used "designation=access_land" for that CROW act access areas, in 
addition to tagging whatever's actually there.


Cheers,
Andy

(to the list this time!)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens & CROW Open Area land

[Robert Whittaker (OSM)]

On 4 July 2012 15:19,   wrote:
> I'm not intending to twist an existing tag (some of which are highly debated
> anyway - e.g. landuse and landcover), just trying to identify which if any
> are of use for these cases. Okay which is preferred out of:
>
> * designation = millennium_green (or doorstep_green, crow_open_access, etc)
> * boundary = millenium_green

I would agree that we shouldn't use a physical tag (eg landuse=*,
natural=*) for this, since it's not a physical thing. Equally it's not
really a particular useage (eg leisure=*) -- it seems form what's been
written as though these areas can come in lots of different forms. We
should tag and landuse, natural and leisure values based on what is
actually there and how it's used. The edge isn't really a boundary in
the same way as admin boundaries -- it's no more of a boundary than
the edge of any area feature. The fact that it's a millenium_green is
something else, and I think it should be tagged accordingly.

I quite like the idea of using designation=millennium_green for this.
It does more or less fit with existing use for tagging a particular
technical/legal designation of something independent of its physical
characteristics. It may be stretching designation=* a little, since
it's maybe more of a funding source / scheme than a legal designation
with specific implications. But overall, I think
designation=millennium_green is a good enough fit, and better than
inventing a new tag just for Millennium Greens.

(As far as Open Access Land land under the CROW Act goes, there are
already 51 uses of designation=access_land in OSM -- quite a few of
which may be down to me. This seemed like a natural extension of
designation=public_footpath for what is in effect a similar legal
designation that gives certain rights to go there on foot.)

Robert

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens & CROW Open Area land

[rob . j . nickerson]

Hi All,

I think the whole area classifies as a park  
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Green). Further I don't follow the  
argument of creating new tag keys. Without some form of discussion we risk  
ending up with many different ways of doing the same thing (not good for  
data consumers).


I'm not intending to twist an existing tag (some of which are highly  
debated anyway - eg landuse and landcover), just trying to identify which  
if any are of use for these cases. Okay which is preferred out of:


* designation = millennium_green (or doorstep_green, crow_open_access, etc)
* boundary = millenium_green

My vote goes on the first as it matches how designation is already used in  
practice, and boundary seems a little redundant on a closed way (as does  
area=yes on things other than highways or waterways etc.)


Rob





On , Brian Quinion  wrote:

>> are clearly gardens, some parks, some nature reserves. Please do not



>> retag these features to some perceived standard. I would also avoid



>> overloading the designation key - better to have an explicit key than



>> to reuse and existing key.



>>



>> About the only thing these area have in common is that they were all



>> funded as part of the same project, if you want capture this



>> information I would suggest something like:



>>



>> millennium_green=yes



>>



>> or how about:



>>



>> funding_source=Millennium Green



>>



>> --



>> Brian



>


> Yeah you're entirely right that the land cover can be different. They  
have



> to include "significant natural area". The one closest to me is a mix of


> grassy areas and woodland. Oddly it misses one part of grassy area.  
There is


> a local nature reserve that includes all the grassed area but not the  
wood!!


> It would make sense to me to tag the whole area as leisure=park and  
then to


> tag the Millennium Green and Local Nature Reserve as 2 separate closed  
ways.





The whole area isn'ta park so don't tag it as such. It is an area



covered by a funding program / financial trust.




> Perhaps the landuse tag can be used. The main issue here is that the  
area is





Please do not reuse existing tags (designation, landuse, whatever) to



mean something new. Create a new tag that is explicit. Reusing an



existing tag causes huge problems for data users. It isn'ta type of



landuse - which describes the physical usage of the land.





> On second thoughts, there is a boundary proposal that could work well:



>



> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reserve#Examples



>



> Looks like the boundary tag is already used:



>



> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dnational_park



> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area



>


> Looking at the page on boundary=protected_area, perhaps class 7 is the  
right



> one for Millennium Greens?





As Ed has said this probably isn't appropriate although it would seem



closer. How about boundary=millennium_green ?





Please - use a new tag. Don't try to twist an existing tag. Adding a



new tag is not a bad thing - create it and document what you have done



to the wiki.





--



Brian



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens & CROW Open Area land

[Brian Quinion]

>> are clearly gardens, some parks, some nature reserves.  Please do not
>> retag these features to some perceived standard.  I would also avoid
>> overloading the designation key - better to have an explicit key than
>> to reuse and existing key.
>>
>> About the only thing these area have in common is that they were all
>> funded as part of the same project, if you want capture this
>> information I would suggest something like:
>>
>> millennium_green=yes
>>
>> or how about:
>>
>> funding_source=Millennium Green
>>
>> --
>>  Brian
>
> Yeah you're entirely right that the land cover can be different. They have
> to include "significant natural area". The one closest to me is a mix of
> grassy areas and woodland. Oddly it misses one part of grassy area. There is
> a local nature reserve that includes all the grassed area but not the wood!!
> It would make sense to me to tag the whole area as leisure=park and then to
> tag the Millennium Green and Local Nature Reserve as 2 separate closed ways.

The whole area isn't a park so don't tag it as such.  It is an area
covered by a funding program / financial trust.

> Perhaps the landuse tag can be used. The main issue here is that the area is

Please do not reuse existing tags (designation, landuse, whatever) to
mean something new.  Create a new tag that is explicit.  Reusing an
existing tag causes huge problems for data users.  It isn't a type of
landuse - which describes the physical usage of the land.

> On second thoughts, there is a boundary proposal that could work well:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reserve#Examples
>
> Looks like the boundary tag is already used:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dnational_park
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area
>
> Looking at the page on boundary=protected_area, perhaps class 7 is the right
> one for Millennium Greens?

As Ed has said this probably isn't appropriate although it would seem
closer.  How about boundary=millennium_green ?

Please - use a new tag.  Don't try to twist an existing tag.  Adding a
new tag is not a bad thing - create it and document what you have done
to the wiki.

--
 Brian

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens & CROW Open Area land

[rob . j . nickerson]

There is the boundary=reserve proposal:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reserve#Examples

But can you really call Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens and CROW Open  
Access Areas "reserves"? Not so sure. Having said that I do like the idea  
of a boundary=something, designation= system (although perhaps boundary is  
redundant, bringing me back to the idea of mapping a closed way as just  
designation=


Rob




On , Ed Loach  wrote:

> Looking at the page on boundary=protected_area, perhaps class 7 is



the right one for Millennium Greens?





From



http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Bac



kground





" There are no protected areas for the United Kingdom in the WDPA"





So I'd say "probably not"





Ed





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens & CROW Open Area land

[Ed Loach]

> Looking at the page on boundary=protected_area, perhaps class 7 is
the right one for Millennium Greens?

From
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Bac
kground

" There are no protected areas for the United Kingdom in the WDPA"

So I'd say "probably not"

Ed


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb