On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 2:40 AM Michael Patrick <geodes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "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. > Here, too. I tag them `leisure=nature_reserve` and `boundary=protected_area` with an appropriate `protect_class`. According to OSM's view, they are not `leisure=park` even if they have 'park' in their names. (The US actually has relatively few objects that match the European definition of 'park' - which is an extensively human-sculpted landscape chiefly for visual enjoyment.) > > 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 > Quite possibly. Are the things in question nature reserves? In any case, in an earlier thread discussing https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/390260 there was quite a broad consensus that they are at least protected areas, and tagging them as such should be relatively non-controversial. There's also a proposal in process at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:_Named_protection_class_for_protected_areas that needs some final tidying before I can call for a vote. (I expect it also to be relatively non-controversial; nobody likes the numeric protect_class that we have today.) > > 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. > Yes, If these conservation easements for green space are private, I simply mark them as `natural=wood` or whatever the appropriate land cover might be, overlaid on the `landuse=residential`. If they're open to the public, once again they become `leisure=nature_reserve`. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7391814 is an example of the latter, where the developer was required to grant the township a public-access green space easement. I mapped part of the landcover as well. (I usually don't bother with mapping landcover, since when I render maps, I get it from other sources, but I make an occasional exception to micromap nature reserves or neighbourhoods.) (Remaining discussion about micro-protected areas snipped.) It is obvious that in multiple areas of the USA, these parks that are not 'parks' by the European definition are of intense local interest. If UK English is the official language of OSM, we may lack appropriate tagging, because the UK doesn't have very many features like them and doesn't really have a phrase to describe them that is succinct enough to use as a tag. If there is a local community of mappers that does have an intense interest in including a feature of a given type, it is profoundly disrespectful to that community to suggest that the feature ought not to be mapped. In this particular case - which everyone on this list knows I've been trying to address for at least a couple of years now - I strongly suspect that there is a fundamental objection in some quarters to mapping these 'parks' - no matter how much local interest they've generated. I'm not sure that I've retained all the emails, but when I did the import of New York City watershed recreation areas, I saw the same arguments - culminating with 'lack of field verifiability.' When that argument reached the height of absurdity, I'd posted examples of the signs posted at intervals on the areas' boundaries (such as https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14018132286). One of the regular objectors - I forget which - emailed me and stated firmly that since there was no continuous marking of the boundary (such as a fence) the boundary was still not verifiable, and the area could therefore still not be mapped; he said that the only way it could be included in OSM was to map the individual signs and ignore the area for which they are a demarcation. This argument made it clear to me that at least some individuals on this list are opposed to the very existence of these features, and no tagging will ever satisfy them. They are willing to stretch 'verifiability' indefinitely to exclude any feature that they don't like. It was at that point that I decided to carry out the import, and simply give up on the project if anyone reverted it. Nobody did. These areas are still mapped, and I sporadically update them to match new maps released by the bureau that maintains the areas. These areas, by the way, are of interest to me. As an example, I used https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424227080#map=16/42.1705/-74.1033 in actual practice while planning a trip, to answer the question, "is there a route that I can use to approach Roundtop Mountain from the west without trespassing?" How would I answer that question without mapping the area in question, as an area feature? The fact that I use features like this one means that I'm not inclined to give very much weight to arguments like, "that sort of thing is not significant/verifiable enough to map", or "that sort of thing isn't a park/nature_reserve/recreation_ground/... and we don't have an appropriate tag so you can't map it," or "that sort of thing is only visual clutter so you can have it in the database only if it doesn't render." And before anyone accuses me again: I've never played Pokémon Go, and I'm not trying to create parks to manipulate the game. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
