> Case 1: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png <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/ <goog_603772207> 10/01/technology/california- <goog_603772207>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 xxxx 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 cars parked on it is a "park" because it is "open to > the public" and "has amenities" sounds very far-fetched to me. New York City has many of these. Some established after the public rioted in the streets https://www.nycgovparks.org/about/history/timeline/rediscovery-restoration The Port of Seattle overlook parks fit your description also. https://drive.google.com/file/d/11fc2rb_t6pgvnFlv-MEo-zJqKDqxxxv1/view?usp=sharing ... most of these parks are also heritage sites for the Duwamish Tribe. > 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. It's not a big burden to type the street names into the local newspaper's search box and see what pops up. <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/technology/california-beach-access-khosla.html> The small size itself indicates that further investigation is needed, and not ignored. The fact that these piece have not been absorbed into private property over time indicates they are the focus of some sort of intense public interest. Michael Patrick Data Ferret <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link> <#m_7801412225129682438_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
