Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

stevea
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

stevea
On Apr 23, 2019, at 10:02 PM, Tod Fitch <[hidden email]> wrote:
> You are a brave person to try to get this organized.

That IS how it feels, thank you for that recognition!  I'm might be thought of as more of a single person initiating dialog (with my shoulders shrugged) than a full-fledged "organizer."  I suppose I'll find myself in whatever role the community offers and we'll all trudge through it together.  I don't think there is a "leader," more like a lot of opinions which deserve to be heard (making it yet harder) and wrapped up into what hopefully turns into a solution.

> I am not sure how one could make a blanket categorization based on the little part of the world I am familiar with.

The examples you give are all too familiar to me, yet I believe that OSM does a decent job of tagging all of them, with the exception that leisure=park being freshly more precisely defined dumps serious buckets of sludge into how things are presently tagged here.  And I suspect in many places, not just California or USA.

> You have contradictions: A city park that is a protected area, a national park that is basically a city park, a couple of county parks that fall on both sides, and land protected by a non-governmental entity.

It is complicated, I know.  We frequently tag our best, yet without more clear answers to the simple question "how do I tag a county park?" (except to slog through a decade of history and multiple wiki pages) I feel dejected, even exhausted.  I see no good solution forward.

> Closer to my new home, the Capistrano Beach Park (Orange County), the San Clemente city beaches and the adjacent Calafia State Beach (California State) are pretty much indistinguishable other than the color and style of the life guard towers. Why would you tag them with different park_level values?
> The park_level tag mentioned on your wiki page does not seem to give much information beyond what can already be provided by the operator and owner tags so I don’t see that this helps the situation.

The park_level tag is an "auxiliary tag" which is not the solution, it acts to supplement any operator/owner tags.  However, just as admin_level does, park_level could help rendering, meaning national parks could eventually render differently than state, county or city parks.  Whether the border is differently "dashed" or differently colored hasn't yet been discussed.

> Given the diversity here, it would not surprise me if the rest of the world has even more contradictions and exceptions to any simplistic rule we may come up with. Other than perhaps the “duck rule” (if it quacks like a duck, assume it is a duck). Maybe the local mapper(s) should be asked to decide if the park falls into the “protected area” category vs “leisure/recreation” category. That decision might involve non-binary information as many protected areas include provision for some types of limited recreation. And at least some urban/suburban parks include areas that are left as close to nature as possible for various reasons which may include protection for specific species, etc.

I know.  I understand that leisure=park being more narrowly defined is a step in the right direction, but it has the oddly contradictory effect of tagging what really are park-like entities much more difficult.  The conundrum continues.

SteveA
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

stevea
A brief update:  I have blown the dust off of a relevant wiki, https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States_Public_Lands , started over eight years ago and hardly touched since then.  As originally written, this addressed federal (admin_level=2) public lands only.  Mainly, it still does, though my recent "beefing up" of it does begin to edge into state parks (admin_level=4) also having consensus that boundary=national_park is an appropriate tag.  As it also mentions that leisure=park (admin_level=8, largely) is appropriate on "urban" (municipal) parks, it reveals the obvious hole:  OSM in the USA has yet to tackle the now-difficult question of what to do on "county parks" (and county beaches, etc.) at admin_level=6.

So, that wiki might be the primary place to discuss, enrich, contribute ideas.  There are links there to the (just born) park:type wiki, which seems that while it may live on as a "crutch" tagging style (there are thousands of examples in use), park:type should eventually move towards deprecation as better consensus emerges.

Please at least read this brief wiki and think about how we might better tag county parks.

Thanks,
SteveA
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by stevea
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 10:33 PM OSM Volunteer stevea
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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.

TL;DR - Tag the land use, not the land ownership. A city, town,
county, or state park may be virtually indistinguishable urban green
spots, recreation grounds, nature reserves, whatever. The level of
government that manages them may be of interest and worth tagging, but
ought not to be the primary determinant of 'park type'.


I think that the Wiki definition leaves a lot to be desired, and I'm
groping in a fog, much as you are, so please don't take anything that
I say here as a confrontational pronouncement.

My read on "urban/municipal" is that it describes setting and land
use, rather than the operator. To me a "park" in a
urban/suburban/front-country setting connotes a certain type of
facilities. It will likely have adequate parking, or else access to
public transportation. It will likely have public toilets.

Some are designed as restful spaces within the urban environment. Such
a park may have walking paths, benches, manicured gardens. Or it may
have a part that's allowed to run a little bit wilder, but often in
those cases it will have developed nature trails, perhaps with
placards identifying species or discussing the local ecosystem. They
may have elaborate landscaping, public art works, topiary, and other
features to add visual interest.

They will often have developed picnic facilities, perhaps even with
gazebos or pavilions that can be reserved for parties.

Some parks have further development. It's common to have playgrounds.
Playing fields, swimming pools or beaches, grandstands for spectators
to athetic competitions, and the associated facilities for athletes to
bathe and change clothes are often found. It's not unusual for a park
to have an outdoor theatre or music performance venue. Entertainments
such as carousels or miniature trains are not unheard-of. If a park
has a waterfront, then punts, rowboats, canoes, or pedal-boats may be
among the attractions offered. Concessionaires hawk their wares.

A park on a natural waterbody may well offer a boat launch and docks or quays.

All of these features make for what is essentially a human landscape.
It's one that's designed to be relaxed, focused on being a respite
from the hurly-burly of the city, but it's still relatively densely
developed - with many users concentrated in a relatively small area -
and definitely human-sculpted.

Whether the park is managed by a private conservancy, a city, a
county, a state or province, or a nation doesn't affect this
fundamental character.

A 'national park' typically exists to protect and display some
particularly valuable landscape feature. While more enlightened
management tries to protect the rare species that inhabit such a space
and the rare landforms found therein, what makes national parks so
very popular are the striking viewscapes that can be obtained over
large tracts of undeveloped land. Management will usually try to
concentrate gawkers into a few 'sacrificial' areas, so there will be
paved roads, parking, concessions, campgrounds and the like, and there
will be relatively accessible 'front country' trails, often with staff
conducting interpretive tours.

Beyond that 'front country' development, recreations in national parks
typically are strenuous outdoor pursuits: hiking, mountain biking,
riding of horses or mules, canoeing, fishing and hunting where
allowed, mountaineering, climbing, backcountry skiing. There's a far
greater sense of solitude, and a much greater need for preparedness -
if things go wrong, you're likely to be on your own for quite a while.

Virtually all National Parks in the US (in contradistinction to
National Recreation Area, National Monument, National Historic Site,
National Scenic Trail, National Seashore, and the rest of the zoo of
NPS-managed facilities) have just this sort of structure - a
relatively small, developed 'front country' environment which most
visitors never leave, facing a scenic, wild back country that is
available to more intrepid travelers. Often the backcountry also
partakes of the characteristics of 'nature reserve' in that it is
managed for conservation and research.

It's common for large 'parks' - both National Parks and the large
state and county parks - sometimes to have mixed uses. Many National
Parks, and many state and local facilities near me, have extensive
inholdings - either land in private ownership, or land belonging to
the managing government but leased to private holders. Harriman State
Park, for instance, houses a fair number of quasi-private youth camps
(often targeted at disadvantaged youth from New York City),
campgrounds (for tent camping, caravans, and cabin users), and
developed recreation facilities (with athletic fields, swimming
beaches, changing facilities), all embedded in a fair-sized area of
'back country' that was an industrial wasteland a century ago but has
had the intervening time for Nature to start reclaiming it. While
you'll never be able to avoid the day-trippers, it's entirely possible
to plan a long weekend of trekking in the park that won't leave the
woods. It's actually a favourite area of mine to introduce beginners
to trekking, because it's safe - there's a quick exit to a developed
place from anywhere in the park.

'Nature reserve' covers a lot of things - which is why we augment
nature reserves with boundary=protected_area tagging. It typically
connotes few or no facilities for the support of human visitors. The
Wiki description once assumed that nature reserves would be small
green spaces close to the built environment, but has since been
broadened to describe the way that the tag has actually been used,
particularly in North America, where enormous reserves of undeveloped
land are commonplace. A nature reserve may comprise only a few city
blocks that are intentionally left undeveloped so as to have some
relatively wild green space in the urban environment, or a protected
wilderness of a thousand km². The protection class and title are
really useful here.

At one side 'nature reserve' also blends into 'forest'. At least near
me, there are 'National Forests', 'State Forests', and 'County
Forests' that share in common the legal fiction that they are managed
to maintain a timber reserve. (The first US National Forests were
created to ensure the US Navy a supply of ships' masts.) Some - not
all - are producing forests. Most, in actual practice, are managed for
wildlife, soil and water conservation, and for the less impactful
outdoor recreation that I already characterized as typical of the
backcountry areas of national parks. They share in common that they
enjoy a lesser degree of protection, typically, than national parks or
nature reserves - IUCN considers them resource-conservation areas.

The name is NOT a reliable indicator here.  In particular, in New
York, Wild Forest is a classification just a shade below Wilderness.
It's not producing forest - in fact, timber production is forbidden on
Wild Forest lands by the state constitution. The difference between it
and Wilderness is mostly that Wild Forest allows more mechanical
recreation - MTB's, snowmobiles, perhaps even ATV's - because it is
deemed capable of supporting slightly more intensive usage. State
Forest is an entirely different kettle of fish. Many are producing
forests, and many others are effectively game reserves.

I think it's a fine idea to have park_level (although given that we're
also talking about nature reserves and forests, that's an unfortunate
name) so that we don't continually confuse the type of resource with
the level of government that manages it. Perhaps in other countries,
the goverment level is more predictive of the resource type, but my
home state of New York has a treasure in its public lands, and next to
no Federal management. (We have nothing titled National Park, and our
other NPS facilities are mostly urban historic sites.) That's largely
because we implemented the idea before the rest of the country, and
Theodore Roosevelt took it with him to Washington.

Then we can actually work on trying to sort out park types - with the
idea that large 'parks', conserved at least in part as showplaces and
tourist destinations, with extensive backcountry, could be
'national_park' irrespective of what level of government supports
them, that 'parks' that exist in an extensively developed state for
intensive use may be 'leisure=park', again irrespective of the level
of government, and that 'parks' with few or no facilities for human
visitors beyond blazed trails, primitive campsites, privies, and the
like are really nature reserves.

The 'type' of park ought to be "what type of experience ought the
visitor to expect" and not "what government manages it."

In my state:

I have much the same sort of experience in the Bennett Hill preserve
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/345643852 - run by a private
conservancy (with a tax abatement from the state), the Niskayuna
public open space https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7393853 - run
by the township, the Plotter Kill Preserve - belonging to the county,
and the undeveloped (and unsigned, except for boundary markers) Mohawk
River State Park https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7393854.
They're all nature reserves. I expect a place to park, and perhaps a
place to sign in and out. I had better bring a trowel if I'm planning
to stay any length of time.

There's a different feel also to be had in, say, the Roundtop Mountain
Unit https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424227080 - which is one of
about four hundred recreational units *outside* New York City but
owned by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection
(which buys land in that part of the state because its water supply
comes from the rivers there and it wishes to protect the land from
development).  There's a much greater sense of wildness and solitude
there, though, because it's contiguous with the Kaaterskill Wild
Forest (as I mentioned, one level below Wilderness protection)  Unless
you're alert to the survey markers, it's not obvious when you cross
from one parcel to the other. (I speak from personal experience. That
was my jumping-off point for climbing Round Top and [Kaaterskill] High
Peak.) But 'nature_reserve' covers a multitude of different things.

It's a very different sort of experience from Blatnick Park
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7393858 - township, Central
Park https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65768067 - city, Tawasentha
Park https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/170525817 - county, or Lake
Taghkanic State Park https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6447033 -
all of which I'd happily tag with 'park'. There are ball fields,
picnic areas, playgrounds, gardens, dog parks, concessions.

The sui-generis Adirondack and Catskill Parks are a good fit to
'national_park', as would, say, be the agglomeration of Harriman State
Park with the coterminous Bear Mountain and Sterling Forest, or the
large Fahnestock https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6437616 or
Allegany https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/325822775 parks.  I might
be convinced to put Watkins Glen
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6448362 in that category.  It's
got a large campground, a developed tourist area (the canyon east of
the railroad, where all the spectacular waterfalls are) and then a
backcountry section with a distinctly wild feel, mostly visited by
trekkers on the Finger Lakes Trail. Backcountry camping is allowed, at
least at designated sites.

There's a bit of a similar feel to the state parks surrounding Niagara
Falls - they're all about spectacular natural features - the falls,
the gorge, the whirlpool - but I'm of two minds. The setting is
unquestionably urban, and there's no real 'backcountry' experience
behind the spectacular views.

Bethpage State Park https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6447778 is
a golf course. Robert Moses State Park
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6442393 is a swimming beach. I
see no reason to map them as anything but what they are, except to
inform the user that they're state-owned and run by OPRHP (the Office
of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation).

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

stevea
On Apr 24, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
(a LOT about parks!  thanks, Kevin!)

> TL;DR
I tried to be brief, sorry if I wasn't.

> - Tag the land use, not the land ownership. A city, town,
> county, or state park may be virtually indistinguishable urban green
> spots, recreation grounds, nature reserves, whatever. The level of
> government that manages them may be of interest and worth tagging, but
> ought not to be the primary determinant of 'park type'.

I tag a whole heck of a lot of land USE, yet exactly HOW do I tag a typical "county park?"  (Mmm, there is nothing "typical" about these).  This is what we 'mericans largely call "park" yet doesn't hew to OSM's newly freshened-up leisure=park, which now more strictly means "smaller manicured urban public greenery, shady, tidy, semi-natural places to walk within the city, likely a restroom, maybe a playground..." with the emphasis on "smaller" and "urban."  County parks are often more-rural and can be quite large.  Accordingly, the newly-narrower leisure=park tag seems no longer an even somewhat-correct tag on these.  So what IS the "land use" here?  Especially when it clearly ISN'T leisure=park?

I do not mean to put as much emphasis on "level of government which administers the park" as people take here:  it's almost a non-issue and can be fully captured by operator=* and/or owner=* tags:  if they better clarify, use these.  The park_level tag is an old idea of mine we might resurrect to aid in better rendering park boundaries if we so choose, that's all it would be good for, same as admin_level acts today.  (There are places, especially in far northern California, where visually parsing the cacophony of different park jurisdiction boundaries would greatly benefit by semiotic aids to do so).

> I think that the Wiki definition leaves a lot to be desired, and I'm
> groping in a fog, much as you are, so please don't take anything that
> I say here as a confrontational pronouncement.

I'm glad to hear you grope, too, as I know you've had a lot of interaction with these taggings and what might be done about them.  As I've said, it's a chewy problem.

> My read on "urban/municipal" is that it describes setting and land
> use, rather than the operator. To me a "park" in a
> urban/suburban/front-country setting connotes a certain type of
> facilities. It will likely have adequate parking, or else access to
> public transportation. It will likely have public toilets.

Right, this is what I meant by "admin_level=8, LARGELY" as leaving that wiggle room is truly required:  it isn't ALWAYS the city parks department that will operate every single leisure=park in a given city.  Still, look at how vague is talking about "setting."  That's difficult to agree upon right out of the gate.  (I'm not complaining, merely re-stating the difficulty of articulating the problem, even as we do our best to tease out what we mean).

> ...these features make for what is essentially a human landscape...definitely human-sculpted.

This is a potentially excellent addition to the leisure=park wiki, as you do capture an important semantic with this.  Thank you.

> A 'national park' ... (is contradistinguished) to...the rest of the zoo of
> NPS-managed facilities)

But you actually seem to glom them together because of their many similarities.  I agree these seem much more similar than they do different.  Still, we are left with "national parks" (and things which are so much like them that the tag might fit well, more-or-less), leisure=park (which we agree "we know them when we see them," yet are hand-wavy vague beyond what we now say in its wiki) and this great big slew of "other things called parks" which largely happen to be things like county parks, county beaches and similar ilk, which do NOT fit (neatly or otherwise) into those two categories.  Hence, the conundrum continues.  Especially as I ask again, what IS the "land use" on these?

> It's common for large 'parks' (suitable) to introduce beginners...

This is (almost?) yet another category of (loosely stated) "park," perhaps "a kind of human recreation area" which perhaps we have yet to well categorize and tag thusly.


> 'Nature reserve' covers a lot of things...particularly in North America

It does seem N.A. does things differently than others in OSM and the greater world, but it may be that I simply haven't done enough homework or traveling to fully and more correctly state that.  This (parochialism, regionalism) may be a primary source of our difficulty.  (I have been to three continents, but of course I haven't been to nor do I know everywhere — I more and more rely upon OSM for that!)

> ...forests and (effective) game reserves.

Thank you, this offers crucial knowledge which definitely should be expressed in precision OSM tagging.  I know you do your best to achieve that where you map.  We should all strive to do so well at tagging, which is what many see as a topical holy grail.

> I think it's a fine idea to have park_level (although given that we're
> also talking about nature reserves and forests, that's an unfortunate
> name) so that we don't continually confuse the type of resource with
> the level of government that manages it.
> (and some cool history).

I'm all for another name if you'd like to coin/suggest one.  However, you say "the resource" and that's a good (at least temporary) placeholder word to plug a hole I've mentioned:  what to call these lands which seem not to fit into the existing ones.  We know national_park, we know leisure=park (and there are also leisure=nature_reserve and boundary=protected_area, too).  Call these the "Existing 4."  Yet, (pulling the bubble gum from behind my ear and blowing), we might now also have "public resources" (as land, sometimes water — "area," really) of whatever level of government, that's a minor concern, if one at all.  Perhaps I'm looking for a new key to tag with, call it public_resource, into which all of these entities can live together as one big semantic bucket, the elusive "5th key" into which all of today's question marks magically belong.  It would be great if we could agree on one, AND have it render in Carto relatively quickly, that would solve a lot; that might be a central nut to crack here.  Or, maybe we don't need a 5th key.

Are county parks leisure=park or boundary=national_park?  No.  Are they leisure=nature_reserve?  Sometimes, if so, use that tag.  Are they "always otherwise" boundary=protected_area?  Well, maybe, I don't discount that possibility.  Maybe there is a need for a public_resource (or whatever) new 5th key, maybe not and protected_area covers them all, I truly don't know.

> Then we can actually work on trying to sort out park types...

...with what feels well-thought out, yet I can't help but think it is only thought out as far as you could go today (which is great), yet it will run out of gas sometime in the near future, as it wasn't FULLY thought out.  Defining today's syntax to describe today's semantics does have a tendency (especially in OSM) to not quite fully define today's semantics, and it certainly doesn't describe tomorrow's semantics.  Again, tough stuff to do well/right.  We do our best, tagging evolves, that's the reality of this.

> The 'type' of park ought to be "what type of experience ought the
> visitor to expect" and not "what government manages it."

I say "yes" to "not what government manages it," as I repeat, that's largely a sideshow (though "county parks" do seem to be a frequent bucket containing things which fall through the cracks of the Existing 4).  Yet I almost want to say "no" to restricting us to the Existing 4, as those four might not be enough.

> ...Robert Moses State Park https://www.osm.org/relation/6442393 is a swimming beach. I
> see no reason to map them as anything but what they are, except to
> inform the user that they're state-owned and run by OPRHP (the Office
> of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation).

Well, there's some fairly complex tagging here, some may take issue with the use of both leisure=park and yet protect_class=2 (and protection_title — documented — with protection_object — undocumented) without the key of boundary=protected_area.  I've never seen that methodology, but I don't disagree with it (meaning I find it correct, if a bit chin-stroking curious).  They are nicely tagged with operator=*, website=* and phone=* tags, too, so, good.  Yet this fits rather nicely into what many would call an urban, leisure=park, even though it is a state park and might receive a tag of boundary=national_park for exactly that reason, yet isn't.  It seems this exemplifies your desire to see "what it is" tagging, which I certainly respect and I believe is your point.

I'll continue to mull this over, as I thank you for your prodigious contributions to the discussion and my resulting (somewhat better) understanding.  The conundrum continues, the fog is still there, though maybe it has lifted a bit with "Tag the land use," which I already know to do.  And I am better untangling the "government level" as perhaps largely irrelevant (well, it should be tagged when known) from "what is" tagging.  That's a helpful step in the right direction, as it appears to be a vestige of "where the data came from and how they got into OSM."  That shouldn't matter, really.

Whew,
SteveA
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

Doug Peterson
In reply to this post by stevea
To be honest, I have a level of indifference to improvements here because I have
seen so much variety or exceptions to the rule. In the area that I live there
are state parks that have been turned into city / suburban parks. There is a
city / urban park that has been turned into a state park.

There are county parks that function like state parks with camping. There are
county parks that are not any different than city parks in what they look like
and some are in suburban areas.

There are also township parks to consider. They often have ball fields, a
playground and a picnic shelter. They are not any different in look or
appearance except where they are located. With time and development, townships
then sometimes turn into cities / suburbs so how does that change the park?

Maybe there are improvements that can be made. It is just that there is so much
variety to deal with.

Thanks,

Doug Peterson


> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 19:30:56 -0700
> From: OSM Volunteer stevea <[hidden email]>
> To: talk-us <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type
>
> 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.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

Greg Troxel-2
In reply to this post by stevea
OSM Volunteer stevea <[hidden email]> writes:

> 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.

I think Kevin has it right that we should tag primarily by something
about land use, not by owne/operator, although it's fine to tag
operator.

I think the entire "national_park" tag is unfortunate, as it wraps up a
lot of concepts that vary by country, and makes people understand things
when they don't.  In the US, it should mean "preserve the land while
allowing access and enjoyment", there is a notion that the place is
relatively distinguished, and it doesn't really have a connotation of
size.

While "urban/municpal park" and "(USish) national park" are two things,
there is another kind of thing, which I label conservation land,
typically not so urban, and not wilderness.

Around me, there are a number of places, some tens of acres, some
hundreds, where there are dirt hiking trails, some blazes, and some
crude parking areas, and that's about it.  If anything, these are
closest to US national parks in concept, except that preserving the land
is a higher priority than allowing human enjoyment.  I tag them
as landuse=conservation leisure=nature_reserve.

> 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).

I don't understand this.

As I see it OSM's "park" is about an area that is relatively manicured
and taken care of, certainly green compared to pavement, but not really
in a natural state.  As in: if all the humans walked away and you came
back 10 or 20 years later, how different would it be?  A city park would
look totally different, and the semirural conservation areas would look
much the same except the trails would be indistinct and have trees
fallen across them.


I would expect US counties to have both city parks (think Central Park
in NY) and things that are almost wilderness areas or wildlife refuges,
plus everything in between.  I don't see level8 vs level6 management as
important (or even level4 or level2).



_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
24 Apr 2019, 23:05 by [hidden email]:
TL;DR - Tag the land use, not the land ownership. A city, town,
county, or state park may be virtually indistinguishable urban green
spots, recreation grounds, nature reserves, whatever. The level of
government that manages them may be of interest and worth tagging, but
ought not to be the primary determinant of 'park type'.
I fully agree - who owns objects is not changing its type.
Especially for parks - it does not matte whatever it is owned by
government, company or a single person.
I think that the Wiki definition leaves a lot to be desired, and I'm
groping in a fog, much as you are, so please don't take anything that
I say here as a confrontational pronouncement.
It is one of things that seems easy to define until one actually attempts to do it.
Further help is welcomed!
(...)
All of these features make for what is essentially a human landscape.
It's one that's designed to be relaxed, focused on being a respite
from the hurly-burly of the city, but it's still relatively densely
developed - with many users concentrated in a relatively small area -
and definitely human-sculpted.
I agree, and I really like term "human-sculpted".
The 'type' of park ought to be "what type of experience ought the
visitor to expect" and not "what government manages it."
Again, I fully agree.
a golf course. Robert Moses State Park
see no reason to map them as anything but what they are, except to
inform the user that they're state-owned and run by OPRHP (the Office
of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation).
Yes, "park" in the name does not mean that it is leisure=park.

And some leisure=park may not have "park" in the name (not sure how
often it happens in USA).

We have also things called "industrial park" or "business park"
that are also not tagged leisure=park.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Greg Troxel-2


On Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 18:35 Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think the entire "national_park" tag is unfortunate, as it wraps up a
lot of concepts that vary by country, and makes people understand things
when they don't.  In the US, it should mean "preserve the land while
allowing access and enjoyment", there is a notion that the place is
relatively distinguished, and it doesn't really have a connotation of
size.

I agree, the national_park tag is rather unfortunate, some other tag should be used to connote state or national parks in an easily distinguishable fashion while not making it excessively difficult to find parks in general.  With the existing national park tag, I'd use it for national (US and indian tribal), but not state parks.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

brad
Agreed.
'National Park' is very specific.   We have national parks and we have state, county, regional ... parks. 

National:
: belonging to or maintained by the federal government

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/national


On 4/27/19 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:


On Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 18:35 Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think the entire "national_park" tag is unfortunate, as it wraps up a
lot of concepts that vary by country, and makes people understand things
when they don't.  In the US, it should mean "preserve the land while
allowing access and enjoyment", there is a notion that the place is
relatively distinguished, and it doesn't really have a connotation of
size.

I agree, the national_park tag is rather unfortunate, some other tag should be used to connote state or national parks in an easily distinguishable fashion while not making it excessively difficult to find parks in general.  With the existing national park tag, I'd use it for national (US and indian tribal), but not state parks.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

Joseph Eisenberg
I would recommend starting to use boundary=protected_area for State
parks, and other parks that are large natural areas that are designed
for a balance of tourism and protection of the natural environment but
are not actually National Parks.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area

You can tag state parks like this:

boundary=protected_area + protect_class=2 + protection_title="State Park"

Protect Class 2 is the same type as National Parks, and will be
rendered and interpreted the same by most database users, but the
protection title makes it clear that it's actually a State Park, not a
National Park.

For county parks: many of these are small parks that are similar to a
usual urban park, with gardens, playgrounds, sports fields etc, and
can be tagged with leisure=park. Others are natural areas or nature
reserves, and could use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=5 +
protection_title="County Park".

State and National Forests, which are used for logging and grazing as
well as recreation, can be tagged as:
boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6 + protection_title="National
Forest" or "State Forest".

These features will all be rendered the same as boundary=national_park
and leisure=nature_reserve in many renderings styles, but it's nice to
be a little more specific.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

stevea
In reply to this post by Greg Troxel-2
Apologies if I've already answered these.

On Apr 24, 2019, at 4:34 PM, Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think Kevin has it right that we should tag primarily by something
> about land use, not by owne/operator, although it's fine to tag
> operator.

I 100% agree.  Yet I peruse landuse key values (except park is noted leisure=park, which means I'm chasing my tail so I ignore it) and find that none of them come close to describing "park" (the American English sense).  I myself have also used landuse=conservation (long ago) and/or leisure=nature_reserve (neither of which render, not really the point).

> I think the entire "national_park" tag is unfortunate, as it wraps up a
> lot of concepts that vary by country, and makes people understand things
> when they don't.  In the US, it should mean "preserve the land while
> allowing access and enjoyment", there is a notion that the place is
> relatively distinguished, and it doesn't really have a connotation of
> size.

Some say "size matters" with national_park, some say it's too confusing for size to matter.  It doesn't seem we're going to eliminate boundary=national_park anytime soon, as even though this shouldn't have mattered, it did:  this was a tag that rendered, so people used it.  (How rendering — presently, eventually, politically-within-OSM... — gets coupled to tagging is another chewy topic).

SteveA
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

Kevin Kenny-3
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:12 PM OSM Volunteer stevea
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I myself have also used landuse=conservation (long ago) and/or leisure=nature_reserve (neither of which render, not really the point).

My understanding is that landuse=conservation is deprecated in favor
of boundary=protected_area.

leisure=nature_reserve does indeed render.

boundary=protected_area, I am given to understand, renders if the
protection class is between 1 and 6 (with 1a and 1b also rendering).

> > I think the entire "national_park" tag is unfortunate, as it wraps up a
> > lot of concepts that vary by country, and makes people understand things
> > when they don't.  In the US, it should mean "preserve the land while
> > allowing access and enjoyment", there is a notion that the place is
> > relatively distinguished, and it doesn't really have a connotation of
> > size.
>
> Some say "size matters" with national_park, some say it's too confusing for size to matter.  It doesn't seem we're going to eliminate boundary=national_park anytime soon, as even though this shouldn't have mattered, it did:  this was a tag that rendered, so people used it.  (How rendering — presently, eventually, politically-within-OSM... — gets coupled to tagging is another chewy topic).

Some say that 'level of government matters' or that 'title matters' as
well, but I think that the right way to think about it is function.The
two parks in New York that enjoy constitutional protection effectively
function as if they were national parks in other countries, as do many
facilities in the US that are titled, 'National Monument' or even
'National Forest'. They conform with the Wiki definition of 'national
park'. I suspect that relatively few, even among the tourists who've
been there, could distinguish among the coterminous 'Sequoia National
Park', 'Giant Sequoia National Monument, and 'Sequoia National
Forest'.
There was a proposal in the 1960's to transfer control of the
Adirondack Park to Uncle Sam, which would have created the nation's
largest National Park at the time. It was tremendously unpopular and
never went anywhere, but it was recognition that the two systems serve
a similar purpose. Baxter State Park in Maine is more stringently
protected than the adjoining Katahdin Woods and Waters National
Monument, and its scenery is considerably more spectacular.

For New York's confusing array of facilities, I've been careful to
retain protected_area tagging, in case we should lose all the
arguments and have no other consistent tagging left to us.
Unfortunately, to have that make sense, I've had to choose
protect_class=21 protection_object=recreation, since they aren't
generally nature-protected areas. (I try to tag them case by case -
I've not done a massive botched import.) Since that protection class
doesn't render, we're little better off from the standpoint of showing
something on the map.

About half the array of facilities is represented in the table on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NYS_DEC_Lands. Nothing there is
tagged 'park', it's all nature_reserve - with a handful of exceptions
(fish hatchery, historic site, and notably state forest). Multiple Use
Area probably *should* be the same as whatever we wind up deciding is
right for the typical 'state park' but right now they're nature
reserves.  The remaining half of the facilities are the State Parks,
State Historic Sites, and State Recreation Areas (maybe other titles,
too, I need to check my notes) that are administered by a completely
different department of the state government.

My personal worst case of 'city park' is one that would fall solidly
within the European definition of 'park' - except that, well, it's
sort of also a cemetery.  https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1438926 I
made the somewhat arbitrary decision of using multipolygons that
follow the land use rather than the property line.

It's a mess, and it's what I've got.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

brad
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
I like this better than calling a state park a national park. Tagging
them state parks with the national park tag is an abstract concept that
will just result in confusion.   If the consensus is to tag them the
same then I suggest depracting the national park tag and coming up with
something else so it isn't confusing.

On 4/29/19 8:51 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

> I would recommend starting to use boundary=protected_area for State
> parks, and other parks that are large natural areas that are designed
> for a balance of tourism and protection of the natural environment but
> are not actually National Parks.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area
>
> You can tag state parks like this:
>
> boundary=protected_area + protect_class=2 + protection_title="State Park"
>
> Protect Class 2 is the same type as National Parks, and will be
> rendered and interpreted the same by most database users, but the
> protection title makes it clear that it's actually a State Park, not a
> National Park.
>
> For county parks: many of these are small parks that are similar to a
> usual urban park, with gardens, playgrounds, sports fields etc, and
> can be tagged with leisure=park. Others are natural areas or nature
> reserves, and could use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=5 +
> protection_title="County Park".
>
> State and National Forests, which are used for logging and grazing as
> well as recreation, can be tagged as:
> boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6 + protection_title="National
> Forest" or "State Forest".
>
> These features will all be rendered the same as boundary=national_park
> and leisure=nature_reserve in many renderings styles, but it's nice to
> be a little more specific.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

stevea
In reply to this post by stevea
Apologies for length, yet this is long and requires words.

brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
I like this
(what Joseph Eisenberg wrote)
better than calling a state park a national park.  Tagging them state parks with the national park tag is an abstract concept that will just result in confusion.

Brad, I "like it," too (what Joseph wrote, as it correctly meets present-day OSM conventions), but I won't (right now) go so far as to say I like it "better."  We have both, as both definitions and tagging are messy; we have multiple tagging methods for meaning the same thing.  I say this partly because the concept OSM defines as "national_park" seems (to me) to directly fit onto state parks.  I am not alone, as I look at how we tag in the USA:  hundreds of "parks" (park-like things) are tagged boundary=national_park when they are not "National Parks" as administered by the National Park Service.  Try this OT query (which geocodes in randomly-chosen Oregon, searching for boundary=national_park there):  https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/IHx .  You get 20 megabytes:  hundreds of results representing dozens of "parks," some of them national monuments, national recreation areas, national forests, national historic parks, a national grassland and yes, even a national_park (as you'd expect), Crater Lake NP.

However, note there are also numerous STATE parks, STATE forests, STATE recreation areas and things like STATE recreation site, STATE scenic viewpoint and STATE natural area.  See:  in one randomly selected state alone, several STATE parks NOW TAGGED boundary=national_park!  I am being descriptive (what is) as I report these data, not prescriptive (what should be), as I don't say how we OUGHT to tag.  I observe that there appear to be few or no consistent tagging standards on "parks" in the USA (where I spend time looking, this may be true more widely in OSM).  That was my point as I initiated this thread:  so we might achieve both better understanding of parks and better (more consistent) tagging on parks.

"Tagging them state parks with the national park tag" is NOT "an abstract concept," it is correct.  I don't want to get overtly political, but the 50 states are sovereign.  Period, full stop.  Including how states define parks.  Please see the US constitution's 10th amendment, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_divisions_of_the_United_States, which states "According to numerous decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the 50 individual states and the United States as a whole are each sovereign jurisdictions," with cite.  This is settled, well established US legal doctrine.  I hope OSM can agree with the US Supreme Court along with centuries of decisions by US jurists and citizens (and I think we largely do).

  If the consensus is to tag them the same then I suggest depracting the national park tag and coming up with something else so it isn't confusing.

I hear you as you say you are confused.  I hope this post has helped w.r.t. state sovereignty and the fact that many others in the USA both understand state sovereignty and continue to tag "true" (NPS) national parks, national-park-like (but aren't) federal areas AND state parks and state-park-like areas with boundary=national_park.  (Understandably, and I believe correctly, given our wiki definitions and the USA's legal/political realities).  I observe I am simply describing and not prescribing (thou shalt tag like this...).  I observe this appears messy to many and that untangling it has been, is and likely will be difficult.  IMO, Joseph's observations are similar positive-contribution suggestions.  I speak for myself, but this thread in talk-us seem a proper forum for this dialog.  If, after reading this, you have similar forward-looking observations and suggestions of your own, I wish to hear those.  Including deprecating the national_park tag, while I listen as you might suggest with what we might replace it, and how.  These might align perfectly with Joseph's suggestions (though he doesn't appear to advocate for deprecation of national_park), or they might not.  I listen.

Thanks,
SteveA

(what Joseph Eisenberg wrote):
I would recommend starting to use boundary=protected_area for State
parks, and other parks that are large natural areas that are designed
for a balance of tourism and protection of the natural environment but
are not actually National Parks.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area

You can tag state parks like this:

boundary=protected_area + protect_class=2 + protection_title="State Park"

Protect Class 2 is the same type as National Parks, and will be
rendered and interpreted the same by most database users, but the
protection title makes it clear that it's actually a State Park, not a
National Park.

For county parks: many of these are small parks that are similar to a
usual urban park, with gardens, playgrounds, sports fields etc, and
can be tagged with leisure=park. Others are natural areas or nature
reserves, and could use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=5 +
protection_title="County Park".

State and National Forests, which are used for logging and grazing as
well as recreation, can be tagged as:
boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6 + protection_title="National
Forest" or "State Forest".

These features will all be rendered the same as boundary=national_park
and leisure=nature_reserve in many renderings styles, but it's nice to
be a little more specific.


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

stevea
In reply to this post by stevea
(I'll try that again, without the link syntax that got scrubbed).

Apologies for length, yet this is long and requires words.

> brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I like this
> (what Joseph Eisenberg wrote)
> better than calling a state park a national park.  Tagging them state parks with the national park tag is an abstract concept that will just result in confusion.

Brad, I "like it," too (what Joseph wrote, as it correctly meets present-day OSM conventions), but I won't (right now) go so far as to say I like it "better."  We have both, as both definitions and tagging are messy; we have multiple tagging methods for meaning the same thing.  I say this partly because the concept OSM defines as "national_park" seems (to me) to directly fit onto state parks.  I am not alone, as I look at how we tag in the USA:  hundreds of "parks" (park-like things) are tagged boundary=national_park when they are not "National Parks" as administered by the National Park Service.  Try this OT query (which geocodes in randomly-chosen Oregon, searching for boundary=national_park there):  overpass-turbo.eu/s/IHx .  You get 20 megabytes:  hundreds of results representing dozens of "parks," some of them national monuments, national recreation areas, national forests, national historic parks, a national grassland and yes, even a national_park (as you'd expect), Crater Lake NP.

However, note there are also numerous STATE parks, STATE forests, STATE recreation areas and things like STATE recreation site, STATE scenic viewpoint and STATE natural area.  See:  in one randomly selected state alone, several STATE parks NOW TAGGED boundary=national_park!  I am being descriptive (what is) as I report these data, not prescriptive (what should be), as I don't say how we OUGHT to tag.  I observe that there appear to be few or no consistent tagging standards on "parks" in the USA (where I spend time looking, this may be true more widely in OSM).  That was my point as I initiated this thread:  so we might achieve both better understanding of parks and better (more consistent) tagging on parks.

"Tagging them state parks with the national park tag" is NOT "an abstract concept," it is correct.  I don't want to get overtly political, but the 50 states are sovereign.  Period, full stop.  Including how states define parks.  Please see the US constitution's 10th amendment, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_divisions_of_the_United_States, which states "According to numerous decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the 50 individual states and the United States as a whole are each sovereign jurisdictions," with cite.  This is settled, well established US legal doctrine.  I hope OSM can agree with the US Supreme Court along with centuries of decisions by US jurists and citizens (and I think we largely do).

>   If the consensus is to tag them the same then I suggest depracting the national park tag and coming up with something else so it isn't confusing.

I hear you as you say you are confused.  I hope this post has helped w.r.t. state sovereignty and the fact that many others in the USA both understand state sovereignty and continue to tag "true" (NPS) national parks, national-park-like (but aren't) federal areas AND state parks and state-park-like areas with boundary=national_park.  (Understandably, and I believe correctly, given our wiki definitions and the USA's legal/political realities).  I observe I am simply describing and not prescribing (thou shalt tag like this...).  I observe this appears messy to many and that untangling it has been, is and likely will be difficult.  IMO, Joseph's observations are similar positive-contribution suggestions.  I speak for myself, but this thread in talk-us seem a proper forum for this dialog.  If, after reading this, you have similar forward-looking observations and suggestions of your own, I wish to hear those.  Including deprecating the national_park tag, while I listen as you might suggest with what we might replace it, and how.  These might align perfectly with Joseph's suggestions (though he doesn't appear to advocate for deprecation of national_park), or they might not.  I listen.

Thanks,
SteveA

> (what Joseph Eisenberg wrote):
>> I would recommend starting to use boundary=protected_area for State
>> parks, and other parks that are large natural areas that are designed
>> for a balance of tourism and protection of the natural environment but
>> are not actually National Parks.
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area
>>
>> You can tag state parks like this:
>>
>> boundary=protected_area + protect_class=2 + protection_title="State Park"
>>
>> Protect Class 2 is the same type as National Parks, and will be
>> rendered and interpreted the same by most database users, but the
>> protection title makes it clear that it's actually a State Park, not a
>> National Park.
>>
>> For county parks: many of these are small parks that are similar to a
>> usual urban park, with gardens, playgrounds, sports fields etc, and
>> can be tagged with leisure=park. Others are natural areas or nature
>> reserves, and could use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=5 +
>> protection_title="County Park".
>>
>> State and National Forests, which are used for logging and grazing as
>> well as recreation, can be tagged as:
>> boundary=protected_area + protect_class=6 + protection_title="National
>> Forest" or "State Forest".
>>
>> These features will all be rendered the same as boundary=national_park
>> and leisure=nature_reserve in many renderings styles, but it's nice to
>> be a little more specific.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us