[Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

[Michael Patrick]

 > Case 1:  http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png
 Two small coastal areas that
look a bit like rock outcroppings. It is hard to imagine to me situation
where it would be leisure=park.

See https://www.nytimes.com/2018/ 
10/01/technology/california- beach-access-khosla.html
It isn't hard to imagine if you are a surfer, kayaker, canoist, fisherman.
These parks although they seem small are hugely important because they
provide public access to the water and shoreline below a certain tideline.
They are also frequently mentioned in fishing regulations. I don't know
exactly where this example is, but it's quite possible it might be the only
way to access miles of beach at low tide which would otherwise locked out
by private property. In Montana, for instance, you can float or wade any
stream below the high water mark. In Seattle, there are what appear to be
merely street ends that kayakers use to launch from.

> Case 2: > http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case2.png
>  I am unfamiliar with CPAD 2018a and SCCGIS v5.

If you are mapping California, it covers these issues. Other states and
counties have published definitions.

> Is there a good reason to expect that their classification matches OSM
classification of objects?

No it it would not. CPAD was was put together built by consensus by
thousands of people from community groups, environmental NGOs, local
governments, and defined by classification experts that cross walked across
hundreds of definitions provided by the stakeholders. It incorporates
everybody's definition of a 'park', not just a couple of lines from a
dictionary.

> "It is a park in the sense of American English as of 2019. Whether it is
> a park according to OSM may be debatable, as it is an "unimproved" park,
> meaning it is under development as to improvements like restrooms and
> other amenities.

In Seattle, there are efforts to un-improve certain parks to restore them
as close as possible to native conditions, especially for salmon run
restoration, wildlife corridors, and plant species preservation.

> Note that it (IMHO correctly) explicitly mentions and excludes urban
forests.
See Las Wolski example at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park?uselang=en <
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park?uselang=en>

LoL!  " Forest within a city. This is not a park, as greenery is not fully
controlled"
Most of the Seattle Parks would not be parks, then. Also, that national
parks are " Parks in isolated, rural locations covering large, usually wild
areas" is not true, see https://www.nps.gov/subjects/urban/index.htm

I suspect that it may be situation here.
> 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.

Our county sometimes requires developers to provision for green space. A
friend of mine recently bought a house, and their owners association is
currently collecting ideas for theirs.

> Provided data - description and arterial is unable to distinguish between
a decorated park lot and a really small park. I would give low weight to
whatever it is officially considered as a county park

So here in Puget Sound, public lands and especially parks have been a focus
for over a hundred years ( Olmstead Brothers' 1903
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olmsted_parks_in_Seattle ), millions
of voters over decades deciding to taxing themselves for their county
government to establish parks, that county then designating those areas
according to the state laws, classifying and entering those boundaries into
one of the most accurate sophisticated 'open data' GIS systems in the
world. .

... and you would give their official definition 'low weight'?

> would love to have a rule of thumb that says "if it doesn't have a name
> (or if it's not more than  sq ft) then it's not a park, it is just
> some trees" or so.

The rule of thumb is if the local ground truth calls it a park., it is a
park. And, at least for the USA, there are thousands of secondary sources,
starting with the National Map, state, county, metropolitan, and city web
maps, NGO web maps.

> technically a "park" in some county GIS system, doesn't mean we have to
call it a park in OSM,

Of course not. Which makes a statement in itself about the ongoing
usefulness of OSM for data consumers and even ordinary people. While the
rest of the global spatial community is moving together and reconciling the
differences between spatial data models  like the EU Inspire effort ), OSM
does allow you the freedom to enter whatever you want even if it doesn't
match the the local community. Hmmm ... we need a new phrase, like 'Crowd
Source Imperialism' or 'Open Hegemony' or some such. :-)

> and the idea that any patch of earth with three
> trees on it and two car

Re: [Talk-us] Maine leaf-off imagery?

[Michael Patrick]

 > I see some tutorials for extracting buildings, but I'm interested in
traces of former land-use - finding artificial linear ground features under
the foliage.

I use CloudCompare ( open source ) to good result for lidar point clouds. (
https://www.danielgm.net/cc/ ) ...See
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h9EmRFOI-WWsQgz3mq9mZ4fuMcDJFfRn/view?usp=sharing
- your mileage may vary, there is a learning curve, but it is a powerful
tool.

That example was made from 'first' return data. If you wanted to get rid of
vegetation, filtering to 'last return' can remove most of it, especially if
your just tracing.
The "Intensity" data does seem to make the sidewalks and pavement pop out
from grass, etc. It might even be possible to distinguish asphalt vs.
concrete, etc. from the signature.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1unUkJTym-V5SrZDrYA-WYInCKkdo0FrJ/view?usp=sharing

All lidar is not created equal, depending on what reason they flew the
mission ( resolution, flight lines, etc. ). But this is some hangers from
the WA DNR King County Lidar near my house at Renton Field. Certainly
sufficient for tracing:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RmWPEQkSrSYi3uRjVn1AjeV3xLDu6Ksy/view?usp=sharing

JOSM seems to have a heart attack when importing more than average size
imagery (understandably ). so you may want to clip your lidar data. Or
trace in a GIS program like Qgis and upload the traces to JOSM.

Michael Patrick,
Data Ferret



Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

[Mateusz Konieczny]

1 Oct 2019, 16:26 by frede...@remote.org:

>
> Case 1:
>
> http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png
>
> Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings.
>
It is hard to imagine to me situation where
it would be leisure=park.
> "zone=PR-PP" which was then interpreted as meaning it's somehow a
> "park".
>
Is this a typical quality of this import?
> Case 2:
>
> http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case2.png
>
(...)
> One mapper says "not a park", the other mapper says that according to
> CPAD 2018a and SCCGIS v5 this is a park
>
Aerial image is useless here, it
is a tree covered area.

It may be in addition leisure=park,
it may be a dump of nuclear waste,
it may be a military polygon.

Is there a chance of on ground photo?
I am unfamiliar with CPAD 2018a and SCCGIS v5.

Is there a good reason to expect that their classification
matches OSM classification of objects?
> "It is a park in the sense of American English as of 2019. Whether it is
> a park according to OSM may be debatable, as it is an "unimproved" park,
> meaning it is under development as to improvements like restrooms and
> other amenities.
>
I would not expect restrooms to 
be indicator of leisure=park
> However, it is an "urban green space open to public
> recreation"
>
I am one of people that attempted to
improve OSM Wiki documentation
of leisure=park

Note that it (IMHO correctly) explicitly
mentions and excludes urban forests.

See Las Wolski example at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park?uselang=en 


I suspect that it may be situation here.
> 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.
>
> Mapper 1: "This isn't a park. It's just a small fenced off grassy
> area.". Mapper 2: "It is a park according to County Park as it meets the
> leisure=park definition of "area of open space for recreational use" and
> contains amenities (parking)."
>
> It is currently tagged leisure=park.
>
Is there a chance of on ground photo?

Provided data - description and arterial is unable to 
distinguish between a decorated park lot 
and a really small park.

I would give low weight to whatever it is officially considered as a county 
park 
> 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?"
>
Park is not there so I would not map.

I would map tree-covered area, maybe trees,
water features and paths if present.

Again, is there a chance for on ground photo?
> 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  sq ft) then it's not a park, it is just
> some trees" or so. 
>
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/490987980 

that is in my opinion will mapped as
leisure=park desire very small 

Though mapping it as a garden may also work.
> 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,
>
+1
> 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.
>
+1
> Also, mapping micro-protected areas on a rocky shore seems to be of
> limited value to me and puts a big burden on anyone who wants to verify
> that.
>
+1___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Townships, Counties, Great Lakes

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 10:18 AM Max Erickson  wrote:

> I've recently been working on adding administrative boundaries for
> townships in Michigan (old USGS paper maps show the boundaries, I'm tracing
> those). Previously I've concluded that counties in Michigan don't really
> extend into the Great Lakes. The sheriff has jurisdiction on the water
> (extending into the water near adjacent counties), but that's about the end
> of it. For the most part Michigan counties are modeled like that, using the
> shoreline as part of the boundary.
>
> What I am wondering about is whether townships should also use the
> shoreline, splitting it into quite a few more pieces than currently exist.
> The alternative would be a ways that share nodes with the shoreline. I'm
> leaning in that direction but I figure it will be a pretty noisy change, so
> I'm asking what people think before proceeding.
>
> Just recently I looked at some of the county borders in Washington State.
For example, Skagit County, where I reside, extends into Puget Sound where
it shares boundaries with Island County, San Juan County and Whatcom County
to the north. Each of the counties like you said have jurisdiction not only
of the water but also tide flats. Other counties share boundaries using the
middle of rivers. Having the boundaries exactly as the state specifies can
help OSM users determine which agency to contact. In fact, I reported to
our county gis their parcel layer doesn't match the states description of
the county boundary. (Whether or not they fix it is a whole different can
of worms.)

On the other hand, State Parks often extend into lakes and ocean. I've
talked to the state parks department who is okay with the boundary stopping
at the shoreline.

Best,
Clifford
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Townships, Counties, Great Lakes

[Max Erickson]

I've recently been working on adding administrative boundaries for
townships in Michigan (old USGS paper maps show the boundaries, I'm tracing
those). Previously I've concluded that counties in Michigan don't really
extend into the Great Lakes. The sheriff has jurisdiction on the water
(extending into the water near adjacent counties), but that's about the end
of it. For the most part Michigan counties are modeled like that, using the
shoreline as part of the boundary.

What I am wondering about is whether townships should also use the
shoreline, splitting it into quite a few more pieces than currently exist.
The alternative would be a ways that share nodes with the shoreline. I'm
leaning in that direction but I figure it will be a pretty noisy change, so
I'm asking what people think before proceeding.


Max
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us