I'll try to be brief, but there's a decade of history. The leisure=park wiki recently improved to better state it means "an urban/municipal" park, while boundary=national_park (or perhaps leisure=nature_reserve, maybe boundary=protected_area) works on large, national (and state or provincial in North America) parks. As the sharper wiki focus means a "city_park" (a sometimes-found park:type value, I've written brand new wiki on park:type) certainly qualifies as a leisure=park, this leaves county_parks (and their ilk, like county_beaches) in a quirky "how best do we tag these now?" quandary.
We could be unanimous that all US Department of the Interior, National Park Service "parks" gets boundary=national_park. We have very strong consensus that boundary=national_park belongs on state_parks, too (states being as sovereign as the US). We keep leisure=park on city_parks. Yet how do we tag county parks? At the park:type wiki, I discuss (though do not call for a formal vote) a new park_level tag, mimicking values from the admin_level of the level of government which operates the park (this doesn't preclude owner=* and operator=* tags on "parks," it could supplement them). It seems park:type could/should deprecate, yet county-level parks are pesky with our "new park wiki" together with the "older, largely done in the Western USA" kind of park tagging. I can see tag leisure=park persisting on a lot of county_parks for some time (forever?), yet it seems OSM's worldwide view of "park" excludes them (and we tag boundary=national_park on state and national parks). This could get tedious, but it seems it has to be discussed. SteveA California _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
