Re: [Talk-us] Map Roulette Idea - GNIS "parks"

[Russell Deffner]

Mike and all,

 

>There is also a "North Park" (on CO 14 West of Cameron Pass).

Yep and Middle Park which is maybe replicated in other states and I’m sure 
there are these geographic parks in many mountain ranges.

 

>I have always considered these "parks" to have no hard boundary (sort of like 
>a valley), and so was unsure of how to map them.  

Agree, this is the main challenge; it’s similar to the mountains themselves a 
bit where they actually do have an area but we typically only map the peak. 
However in the case of these geographic “parks” it may be easier to treat them 
like other natural features such as lakes and wooded areas, where we loosely 
trace their border. Unless people think we should rather try to determine a 
center point (i.e. import those GNIS points for ‘flats’)?

 

>I don't know about "natural=grassland", by definition a "park" is "mostly 
>open", and that openness could be tundra, marsh or bare rock as well as 
>grassland. On the other hand I see "natural=park" creating confusion, as 
>people will start using it for recreation areas.

Agree, in the case of South Park, it is mainly grassland; but yes I would think 
not all “parks” will be very consistent in vegetation, etc. I will continue to 
ponder and welcome any tagging suggestions that makes sense for these features; 
“natural=flat” seems like it would also create confusion as people might use it 
to tag any area that is relatively flat.

 

=Russ

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

Re: [Talk-us] Map Roulette Idea - GNIS "parks"

[Mike Thompson]

Sorry for the delay in responding to the thread I started...

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Russell Deffner 
wrote:

>  I am sure you probably know this, but maybe others on the list do not –
> if you’ve seen/heard of the cartoon “South Park” – it’s actually named
> after one of those geographic features described in that second definition
>
Great example that many people can probably relate to.  There is also a
"North Park" (on CO 14 West of Cameron Pass).


> ; this one:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3387601#map=10/39.1482/-105.8945 –
> which is my handy work, and no, it’s not ‘complete’ and yes it is a bit
> hard to define; but ask any local and they’ll know the general area that is
> ‘South Park’ the ‘flat part’ surrounded by mountains. I’m actually mapping
> the ‘interior features’ first (such as residential and smaller forested
> areas) before ‘stretching the park polygon over top.’
>
Nice work, and I am glad that someone is putting these "parks" on the map.
I have always considered these "parks" to have no hard boundary (sort of
like a valley), and so was unsure of how to map them.  I do think that
these "parks", along with valleys and a few other named geographic features
should be in OSM.

>
>
>
> I have the relation tagged with name=South Park and natural=grassland
> because in my opinion that is what is ‘most common’ as far as a ‘defining
> map feature’ besides the relatively – but definitely not consistent –
> elevation. However, now I wonder if creating natural=park or a similar tag
> might be better.
>
I don't know about "natural=grassland", by definition a "park" is "mostly
open", and that openness could be tundra, marsh or bare rock as well as
grassland. On the other hand I see "natural=park" creating confusion, as
people will start using it for recreation areas.

>
>
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:

>
> I see these parks (e.g. Estes Park, Colorado) as sort of being
> geographical features like hills and sort of being (not necesssarily
> settlement-based) place names.   So maybe changing them to
> place=locality, and maybe also adding some sort of natural=flats tag.
>
 This seems to be a good idea until such time as there a better tag. Small
detail, "flats" should probably be "flat" to be consistent with other tags.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Steven Johnson  wrote:

> I would think USGS might even be interested in some sort of collaboration
> to clean up all the GNIS points.
>
You have a great idea, however, they have an issue with ODbL  Very
frustrating.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Map Roulette Idea - GNIS "parks"

[Greg Troxel]

Mike Thompson  writes:

everything not quoted sounds good.

> Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a OSM tag to describe  “a broad,
> flat, mostly open area in a mountainous region", yet I feel that these
> names are important pieces of information that should be preserved in OSM.
> Does anyone have any suggestions? GNIS classifies these "parks" as "flats",
> but "flats" were not part of the import [3]

I see these parks (e.g. Estes Park, Colorado) as sort of being
geographical features like hills and sort of being (not necesssarily
settlement-based) place names.   So maybe changing them to
place=locality, and maybe also adding some sort of natural=flats tag.

(We don't have this issue in the East.  Flat areas are normal and don't
get named as such.  So I may be off slightly.)




pgp_hFdkL_pHd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Map Roulette Idea - GNIS "parks"

[Steven Johnson]

+1 Great idea. I would think USGS might even be interested in some sort of
collaboration to clean up all the GNIS points.

-- SEJ
-- twitter: @geomantic
-- skype: sejohnson8

There are two types of people in the world. Those that can extrapolate from
incomplete data.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Mike Thompson  wrote:

> A subset of the the US Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) data was
> imported into OSM [2]. I have discovered a systematic error in the GNIS. In
> the US there are at least two different meanings for the word "park" when
> it comes to things we might map in OSM. The first is a recreational
> facility (leisure=park), the second is  “a broad, flat, mostly open area
> in a mountainous region"[1].  In many cases the GNIS classified features
> with "park" in their name as recreation facilities, when in fact they fit
> the second definition. For example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/356504183.  Examining these features
> against the USGS topo maps usually makes their true classification obvious.
> What do you think about a Map Roulette challenge to fix these?
>
> Proposed selection criteria:
> * Part of original GNIS import.
> * No manual edits
> * Tagged leisure = park
> * Name contains "Park"
> * Name does not contain "national" "state", "county", "city" or
> "recreation" (these are likely to really be a recreation facilities).
>
> Map Roulette Instructions to Mappers:
> * Examine USGS topo maps for the area where the feature is located.
> * Examine Bing and/or other imagery
> * If not correct classification isn't clear from above sources, consult
> city and county websites to see if they have a recreation facility with the
> given name in the given location.
>
> Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a OSM tag to describe  “a broad,
> flat, mostly open area in a mountainous region", yet I feel that these
> names are important pieces of information that should be preserved in OSM.
> Does anyone have any suggestions? GNIS classifies these "parks" as "flats",
> but "flats" were not part of the import [3]
>
>
> Mike
>
> [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/park?s=t
>
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue
>
> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/USGS_GNIS#Feature_Class
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Map Roulette Idea - GNIS "parks"

[Mike Thompson]

A subset of the the US Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) data was
imported into OSM [2]. I have discovered a systematic error in the GNIS. In
the US there are at least two different meanings for the word "park" when
it comes to things we might map in OSM. The first is a recreational
facility (leisure=park), the second is  “a broad, flat, mostly open area in
a mountainous region"[1].  In many cases the GNIS classified features with
"park" in their name as recreation facilities, when in fact they fit the
second definition. For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/356504183.
Examining these features against the USGS topo maps usually makes their
true classification obvious. What do you think about a Map Roulette
challenge to fix these?

Proposed selection criteria:
* Part of original GNIS import.
* No manual edits
* Tagged leisure = park
* Name contains "Park"
* Name does not contain "national" "state", "county", "city" or
"recreation" (these are likely to really be a recreation facilities).

Map Roulette Instructions to Mappers:
* Examine USGS topo maps for the area where the feature is located.
* Examine Bing and/or other imagery
* If not correct classification isn't clear from above sources, consult
city and county websites to see if they have a recreation facility with the
given name in the given location.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a OSM tag to describe  “a broad,
flat, mostly open area in a mountainous region", yet I feel that these
names are important pieces of information that should be preserved in OSM.
Does anyone have any suggestions? GNIS classifies these "parks" as "flats",
but "flats" were not part of the import [3]


Mike

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/park?s=t

[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue

[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/USGS_GNIS#Feature_Class
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Map Roulette Idea - GNIS "parks"

[Russell Deffner]

Hi Mike,

 

I’m just going to through my hat in here, nothing concrete, just suggestions. I 
am sure you probably know this, but maybe others on the list do not – if you’ve 
seen/heard of the cartoon “South Park” – it’s actually named after one of those 
geographic features described in that second definition; this one: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3387601#map=10/39.1482/-105.8945 – which 
is my handy work, and no, it’s not ‘complete’ and yes it is a bit hard to 
define; but ask any local and they’ll know the general area that is ‘South 
Park’ the ‘flat part’ surrounded by mountains. I’m actually mapping the 
‘interior features’ first (such as residential and smaller forested areas) 
before ‘stretching the park polygon over top.’

 

I have the relation tagged with name=South Park and natural=grassland because 
in my opinion that is what is ‘most common’ as far as a ‘defining map feature’ 
besides the relatively – but definitely not consistent – elevation. However, 
now I wonder if creating natural=park or a similar tag might be better.

 

Cheers,

=Russ

 

From: Mike Thompson [mailto:miketh...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 3:25 PM
To: Open Street Map Talk-US
Subject: [Talk-us] Map Roulette Idea - GNIS "parks"

 

A subset of the the US Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) data was 
imported into OSM [2]. I have discovered a systematic error in the GNIS. In the 
US there are at least two different meanings for the word "park" when it comes 
to things we might map in OSM. The first is a recreational facility 
(leisure=park), the second is  “a broad, flat, mostly open area in a 
mountainous region"[1].  In many cases the GNIS classified features with "park" 
in their name as recreation facilities, when in fact they fit the second 
definition. For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/356504183.  
Examining these features against the USGS topo maps usually makes their true 
classification obvious. What do you think about a Map Roulette challenge to fix 
these?

 

Proposed selection criteria:

* Part of original GNIS import.

* No manual edits 

* Tagged leisure = park

* Name contains "Park"

* Name does not contain "national" "state", "county", "city" or "recreation" 
(these are likely to really be a recreation facilities).

 

Map Roulette Instructions to Mappers:

* Examine USGS topo maps for the area where the feature is located.

* Examine Bing and/or other imagery

* If not correct classification isn't clear from above sources, consult city 
and county websites to see if they have a recreation facility with the given 
name in the given location.

 

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a OSM tag to describe  “a broad, flat, 
mostly open area in a mountainous region", yet I feel that these names are 
important pieces of information that should be preserved in OSM.  Does anyone 
have any suggestions? GNIS classifies these "parks" as "flats", but "flats" 
were not part of the import [3]

 

 

Mike

 

[1]  <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/park?s=t> 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/park?s=t 

 

[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue

 

[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/USGS_GNIS#Feature_Class

 

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