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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
43 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

stevea
It may be emerging that tagging boundary=protected_area (where correct) where leisure=park now exists and we delete it, begins to supersede leisure=park on many North American now-called-parks.  I think that's OK, maybe even overdue.  To be clear, there are plenty of "we now call them parks" which are more like protected_area boundary areas or maybe "it is what it is today, nothing more."

A hazy sort-of-emerging along with this is wider recognition that a proto_park thingy exists.  Put it in the planning departments "bin" for "department of parks budget, depending how much we convert protected_area into human-leisure-activity in the next budget or ten."  Maybe never, humanity and this planet can hope.  Hey, this could be a park someday if and as we improve it.

Ech, did I just say that's what we 'mericans do with some of our landuse planning?  Maybe.  I try not to get political here, rather, I endeavor to simply tag well.  I've seen kids on bikes go under fences and around things and treat "certain areas" just like an admittedly fully raw and completely undeveloped park, even though it isn't one.  Sometimes with respect, simply hiking around.  What is that?  Humans being human.  We should map those, accurately.

I think the greatest thing to "shake out" of this so far is that the leisure=park tag can (and should be) frequently be dismissed in preference to boundary=protected_area.  This alone will assert a great deal of sanity back into things around here.  Whether we invent a tag called proto_park ('cause there are such things, the city council just hasn't budgeted or spent the money to build it into a more fully human-leisure-place, yet).

Ahhh.  The more people talk about this (leisure=park tagging going away from where it doesn't belong), the more it feels like consensus.

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
 Doug Peterson <[hidden email]> wrote (about "Parks in the USA..."):
> It is just that there is so much variety to deal with.

I agree, it proves frustrating from an OSM perspective.  I believe partly what happened is OSM started in the UK, where British English is spoken and "typically British" concepts entered the map with tags thusly derived, like leisure=park.  However and simultaneously, the well established American English sense of "park" ("a large area of land kept in its natural state for recreational use," my dictionary precedes that with "US") heavily affects how OSM USA contributors tag leisure=park.  This divergence from its OSM semantic (a British English idea of "smaller, urban, human-sculpted...) into US usage has gotten wider for many years.

BTW, this is partly a flame war I have been having for a week or two with another California user (starting with a question he asked on the leisure=park Talk page) and now seems to be improving in its tone and sanity (call it now "only" a brush fire).

What seems to be "shaking out" is that we US park-tagging contributors might think twice before NEWLY tagging leisure=park, though now there are a LOT of those in our map which likely should not be leisure=park, what many say is correct tagging.  So we have plenty of legacy tagging of USA parks which could benefit from examination and considering "Did this protected_area / national_park / nature_reserve / wide-open somewhat-natural recreation place get tagged leisure=park because of how Americans call LOTS of things parks, which isn't really how leisure=park is meant to be used?  Or is the leisure=park tag OK here, though many would say it's being stretched too far to correctly apply?  Many county parks are like this, though as Doug says, "there is so much variety" — yes, as many other "things" are in that bucket, too.

Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote (about "Parks in the USA..."):
> I don't understand this.

about my
>> 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).

What I meant is partly what I say above to Doug:  that there is a lot of legacy leisure=park tagging in our map in the USA which persists, may for some time (by sheer vastness of number), and even when each and every questionable "park" is addressed by careful mappers who wish to do the right thing, there appears now to be a wide gulf between when the tag is seen to be appropriate, vs. inappropriate:  I circle back again to Doug's "there is so much variety to deal with."  There IS muddiness of how Americans use "park" to mean so much (and governments, via "Parks Departments" contribute), while our wiki definitions endeavor to be laser-focused.  I seek clarity, and slowly we appear to be getting there.  This won't get fixed overnight or soon, though, that is obvious, although I do believe that longer-term, things will heal towards better, more consistent tagging.

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

Jmapb
In reply to this post by stevea
On 4/25/2019 8:39 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

> A hazy sort-of-emerging along with this is wider recognition that a proto_park thingy exists.  Put it in the planning departments "bin" for "department of parks budget, depending how much we convert protected_area into human-leisure-activity in the next budget or ten."  Maybe never, humanity and this planet can hope.  Hey, this could be a park someday if and as we improve it.

Sounds like a good case for some lifecycle prefixes --
proposed:leisure=park or planned:leisure=park. (No one seems to know
exactly what the difference is, or if one of these is further along in
the lifecycle than the other. Regardless, proposed:*=* is much more
widely used.)

Once park construction has begun, construction:leisure=park. And finally
just leisure=park when it opens.


> I've seen kids on bikes go under fences and around things and treat "certain areas" just like an admittedly fully raw and completely undeveloped park, even though it isn't one.  Sometimes with respect, simply hiking around.  What is that?  Humans being human.  We should map those, accurately.

We have access=permissive, but I don't think a hole in a fence really
counts as "permissive." (I think de facto access to an area with no
fence/no signage/no enforcement *could* be called permissive.)

Other than that I can't think of any tags that would be applicable to
these sorts of situations. We tend to tag the regulations themselves,
not the extent to which they're adhered to. Certainly just calling it a
park because kids play there doesn't seem consistent with OSM standards.
We don't raise the speed limit in places where everyone speeds, or tag
bicycle=yes on ways where they're prohibited but frequently used.

Jason


_______________________________________________
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
On 4/25/2019 8:39 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
>
A hazy sort-of-emerging along with this is wider recognition that a proto_park thingy exists.  

And on Fri Apr 26 22:44:56 UTC 2019, Jmapb <jmapb at gmx.com> replied:
Sounds like a good case for some lifecycle prefixes -- proposed:leisure=park or planned:leisure=park.

Excellent!  Yes, "lifecycle prefixes" are perfect for this.  My (careful, though I have "burned my fingers" using proposed before, and got spoken to by the DWG — the three of us had a nice lunch together — but that was years ago about a national mess I was cleaning up and we've straightened it out, as in WikiProject USBRS) experience with "proposed" is to use it on something which is "brought to fruition to, with or by public officials so responsible; clearly planned" at least and the funding is "programmed or likely to be."  That can get tricky, as sometimes funding lingers in limbo for a long time, like on California High Speed Rail (which I recently scaled back in OSM because our new Governor did).  But I certainly agree with your

Once park construction has begun, construction:leisure=park. And finally just leisure=park when it opens.

As clearly, construction only happens with funding.

Thank you for reminding us about lifecycle prefixes!

>
 I've seen kids on bikes go under fences and around things and treat "certain areas" just like an admittedly fully raw and completely undeveloped park, even though it isn't one.  Sometimes with respect, simply hiking around.  What is that?  Humans being human.  We should map those, accurately.

We have access=permissive, but I don't think a hole in a fence really
counts as "permissive." (I think de facto access to an area with no
fence/no signage/no enforcement *could* be called permissive.)

I, stevea, agree.  Thank you for your perspective and I hope it clarifies for others reading.

Other than that I can't think of any tags that would be applicable to
these sorts of situations. We tend to tag the regulations themselves,
not the extent to which they're adhered to. Certainly just calling it a
park because kids play there doesn't seem consistent with OSM standards.
We don't raise the speed limit in places where everyone speeds, or tag
bicycle=yes on ways where they're prohibited but frequently used.

No, I think leisure=playground aligns a bit more closely with "kids play here," though some people like snap-tight definitions, others consider things as much more elastic.  It's difficult to please everybody; semantics can be messy.  I'm glad we're better sharpening up leisure=park, it deserves more good discussion.
_______________________________________________
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

Jmapb
On 4/26/2019 9:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
>> Other than that I can't think of any tags that would be applicable to
>> these sorts of situations. We tend to tag the regulations themselves,
>> not the extent to which they're adhered to. Certainly just calling it a
>> park because kids play there doesn't seem consistent with OSM standards.
>> We don't raise the speed limit in places where everyone speeds, or tag
>> bicycle=yes on ways where they're prohibited but frequently used.
>
>
> No, I think leisure=playground aligns a bit more closely with "kids play here," though some people like snap-tight definitions, others consider things as much more elastic.  It's difficult to please everybody; semantics can be messy.

Certainly. But speaking as a map user, if I saw a playground on a map
and then arrived there and found it was just an empty lot or an
undeveloped bit of land, I would find fault with that map. So if these
places (kids play here but it's unofficial) are to be mapped, I'd
suggest different tagging.

If recreation really is the primary human activity in these areas, you
might consider landuse=recreation_ground -- though the way I read the
wiki, it sounds like the intended use is a little more formal than the
situations you're describing.

J


_______________________________________________
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

idnwys
In reply to this post by stevea

On 4/26/2019 9:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

>> Other than that I can't think of any tags that would be applicable to

>> these sorts of situations. We tend to tag the regulations themselves,

>> not the extent to which they're adhered to. Certainly just calling it a

>> park because kids play there doesn't seem consistent with OSM standards.

>> We don't raise the speed limit in places where everyone speeds, or tag

>> bicycle=yes on ways where they're prohibited but frequently used.

> 

> 

> No, I think leisure=playground aligns a bit more closely with "kids play

> here," though some people like snap-tight definitions, others consider

> things as much more elastic.  It's difficult to please everybody; semantics

> can be messy.

 

I disagree.  Going by that definition, my front yard would be

leisure:playground.  I believe the tag should be used for "a place designated

as an area for children to play".  Also, just because someone puts a swing set

in their back yard, shouldn't mean their back yard should be tagged as a

playground.

 

On another note, there are places defined as “city parks” here that are no

more than land that can't really be used for anything.  For instance, a lot in

a subdivision that’s used for storm drainage is labeled as a nature park. 

It's due to the fact they planted native plants on the lot to attract

wildlife.  You would not know it's a "park" if you didn't read the small sign

stating so.  It just looks like an overgrown, unleveled lot.

 

Aaron Forsythe


_______________________________________________
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
> Jmapb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...if I saw a playground on a map
> and then arrived there and found it was just an empty lot or an
> undeveloped bit of land, I would find fault with that map. So if these
> places (kids play here but it's unofficial) are to be mapped, I'd
> suggest different tagging.

I would find fault with that map, too.  Our leisure=playground clearly states "Often they provide equipment..." but maybe "often" could be better stated "nearly always."  That's my experience, though I hesitate to re-write the wiki.  Full disclosure, I did just propose on leisure=playground's Talk page that we add two simple words, "and schools" to describe areas where playgrounds are found, as lots of schools micro-map their campus as an OSM introduction.  Giving a wiki-nod to playgrounds explicitly being found at schools seems welcoming.

> If recreation really is the primary human activity in these areas, you
> might consider landuse=recreation_ground -- though the way I read the
> wiki, it sounds like the intended use is a little more formal than the
> situations you're describing.

Yes, I considered recreation_ground as making the "Existing 4" actually 5.  However, recreation_ground's wiki has a note in the See Also section that says "in many cases area is both recreation ground and a park. In such cases usual tagging is to add just leisure=park."  So while recreation_ground is a specific tag for specific uses, there are conflations to park which are both appropriate and recognized in the wiki.  So we sort of have "Existing 4-1/2."  There are no quick and easy ways to neatly put everything into buckets!


Aaron Forsythe <idnwys at gmail.com> wrote:
...that he disagrees with my interpretation (not strict definition) of "kids play here."  To be clear, I am 100% in agreement with our wiki definition of playground as "a children's playground. These are outdoor (sometimes indoor) areas for children to play...".  The wiki definition's second sentence aligns with my interpretation/characterization, but it is not a definition of (only) what is included in the set, it is an elastic "these are also included" characterization of the set.  As I said, semantics can be tricky.

Aaron also wrote:
> On another note, there are places defined as “city parks” here that are no more than land that can't really be used for anything.  For instance, a lot in a subdivision that’s used for storm drainage is labeled as a nature park.  It's due to the fact they planted native plants on the lot to attract wildlife.  You would not know it's a "park" if you didn't read the small sign stating so.  It just looks like an overgrown, unleveled lot.

I've also noticed that land next to creeks, for drainage, which is too steep to build on, which sometimes floods...is frequently included in what municipalities/park agencies "call" parks, or manage as what might someday become a park (the "proto_park" concept I mentioned).  I've also seen "walkways" which are little more than a path next to a drainage (which does contain/attract native plants, frogs, birds), yet might be as little as ten feet wide but go on for hundreds of feet, and this is called a "park."

Does OSM tag these leisure=park?  "We" (the people, the Departments of Parks...) do, yet should we in OSM?  This IS talk-us; a major reason I brought this up here is that USA park tagging drifts from elsewhere as "more generous with the tag."  Yet the tag has recently become more precise, narrowing it from how it is often used in the USA.

Thanks to all who contribute to the discussion,
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

Josh Lee
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 12:10 PM OSM Volunteer stevea
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Does OSM tag these leisure=park?  "We" (the people, the Departments of Parks...) do, yet should we in OSM?  This IS talk-us; a major reason I brought this up here is that USA park tagging drifts from elsewhere as "more generous with the tag."  Yet the tag has recently become more precise, narrowing it from how it is often used in the USA.

If the wiki history
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark> is to be
believed, it looks like one editor besides yourself has unilaterally
decided to change the wiki page to refer to something which is not how
the tag is actually used.

Where is the consensus or vote? The wiki page says "Status: de facto"
which implies that the wiki page should document *actual usage* and
not some sort of idealist, narrow viewpoint.

_______________________________________________
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 28, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Josh Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Where is the consensus or vote? The wiki page says "Status: de facto"
> which implies that the wiki page should document *actual usage* and
> not some sort of idealist, narrow viewpoint.

Perhaps this is where I throw up my hands in exasperation.  Without exhaustively describing the threads, private missives, backchannel email discussions, hair-pulling exercises, now-stale imports (from when we had no Import Guidelines) and even flame-wars in the map (one in my area that has been a raging brush fire for a couple of weeks is now in truce/detente/notes-are-getting-resolved mode), "the consensus" has been evolving for the almost-decade I've been mapping here.

This talk-us thread is intended to address what US tagging of leisure=park "should better be" going forward, recognizing there is plenty of "legacy tagging" usage of leisure=park, often in California.  Some not-strictly-what-the-wiki-says and how leisure=park IS understood "around the OSM world" is certainly found in the US beyond California, that is quite true.  So this topic isn't a fresh, clean sheet of paper, as much has been said and written.  But much confusion/misunderstanding (and legacy tagging) exists across the USA.

I agree that what our leisure=park wiki says, while it has been tightening up recently, isn't absolutely "actual usage," that isn't my fault, it is what thousands of contributors have tagged.  And as I've said, my inclinations as to why this is so is because our leisure=park wiki wasn't strictly accurate (until recent attempts to make it accurate) likely combined with the American English usage of the word "park" to be more inclusive (of park-like areas often with "park" in their name) than the original OSM concept/usage of leisure=park, which we now better wiki-document than we did before.

So, we now have better wiki (which feels fragile, as it is a new consensus, though it does appear to be "what we meant all along") AND we have legacy-tagging usage in the USA.  Rather than asking for an audit trail of how we got here, may we look ahead to how we'll "better" tag areas (with the Existing 4 tags, not just leisure=park) going forward?

I think we have "wrung out" (as largely irrelevant) the "government-level" semantic component as being unimportant (or we capture it with operator=* and/or owner=* tags), although using the specific example in the USA of "how do we tag a county park?" roughly asks this ticklish question — not because of "county" or that it is admin_level=6, but because county parks are often more-rural, larger, not-as-manicured "things" that we often call parks and which don't strictly meet how OSM means "leisure=park."

So, what emerges is that going forward, leisure=park is as our wiki describes it (a smaller, urban-scale, human-sculpted place for leisure/recreation), EVEN THOUGH many areas which aren't this are now tagged this way.  Going forward, NEW "parks" (in the USA) get this tag only as it is meant/now wiki-described, as we use the Existing 4 more properly.  In other words, it is correct to use the Existing 4 INSTEAD of solely leisure=park when appropriate.  Simultaneously, it is inevitable that many now-tagged-leisure=parks will have that tag changed to one of the other Existing 4.  Yes?

Onward,
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

James Umbanhowar-5
In reply to this post by idnwys
Just to throw another curveball in here, there is also
leisure=nature_reserve which is frequently (occasionally?) used for the
city/county parks that are less structured and used for hiking and
nature appreciation.

On Sun, 2019-04-28 at 08:48 -0500, Aaron Forsythe wrote:

> On 4/26/2019 9:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
> >> Other than that I can't think of any tags that would be applicable
> to
> >> these sorts of situations. We tend to tag the regulations
> themselves,
> >> not the extent to which they're adhered to. Certainly just calling
> it a
> >> park because kids play there doesn't seem consistent with OSM
> standards.
> >> We don't raise the speed limit in places where everyone speeds, or
> tag
> >> bicycle=yes on ways where they're prohibited but frequently used.
> >
> >
> > No, I think leisure=playground aligns a bit more closely with "kids
> play
> > here," though some people like snap-tight definitions, others
> consider
> > things as much more elastic.  It's difficult to please everybody;
> semantics
> > can be messy.
>  
> I disagree.  Going by that definition, my front yard would be
> leisure:playground.  I believe the tag should be used for "a place
> designated
> as an area for children to play".  Also, just because someone puts a
> swing set
> in their back yard, shouldn't mean their back yard should be tagged
> as a
> playground.
>  
> On another note, there are places defined as “city parks” here that
> are no
> more than land that can't really be used for anything.  For instance,
> a lot in
> a subdivision that’s used for storm drainage is labeled as a nature
> park.
> It's due to the fact they planted native plants on the lot to attract
> wildlife.  You would not know it's a "park" if you didn't read the
> small sign
> stating so.  It just looks like an overgrown, unleveled lot.
>  
> Aaron Forsythe
> _______________________________________________
> 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
James Umbanhowar <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Just to throw another curveball in here, there is also
> leisure=nature_reserve which is frequently (occasionally?) used for the
> city/county parks that are less structured and used for hiking and
> nature appreciation.

Thanks, James.  Reiterating, when I say "Existing 4," (as "tags we use on park-like things"), I mean:

leisure=park
leisure=nature_reserve
boundary=national_park
boundary=protected_area

Number "4-1/2" (or a 5th) might be landuse=recreation_area, which sometimes, even according to its wiki, conflates with leisure=park.  But use landuse=recreation_area when appropriate, of course.

I hear (loud and clear) the unfortunate-ness of boundary=national_park.  I know an easy go-to fix might be "how about we Americans coin the boundary=state_park tag...".  Two things about that which I hope are enlightening.

1)  As states are as sovereign as the federal government (for purposes of saying "what a park is around here"), the tag boundary=national_park has rather widely been applied to state parks and state-park like lands.  (I know Kevin Kenny has made a good case for why he uses this tag on certain New York state "lands" of a certain sort.  And a lot of state parks in California and other states get this tag.

2)  Once we go down the road of state_park as a value on boundary, we'll begin to tag (if we already haven't, I could check taginfo) county_park, city_park, maybe even private_park and other oddities which "break" a strict hierarchy of government administration.  (My psuedo/proto-protosal of a park_level=* tag, with values that mimic admin_level goes here, but that's an aside).  We have sort of tried this with the park:type tag (noted in the Subject), and that has been so wide-open (since at least 2009) that it didn't even have a wiki page about it until I sketched in a loose one late last week.  (I'm dancing as fast as I can).  The park:type tag is a mess, and in my opinion should enter early stages of deprecation right now as I believe it is too free-form and confusing.  I mean, I'm all for coining tags and plastic values, but this one seems to have simply become overly messy.

Perhaps new tags (in addition to the Existing 4 or 5) are in order, so that we may better address the "unfortunateness" of boundary=national_park.  But it would have to be a quite-well-thought-out proposal, might NEED to include the concept of park_level (which can be supplemented by operator=* and/or owner=* tags), and should scale to the whole world of OSM, rather than be USA-specific.  I'm pretty sure, anyway.  Or maybe we don't need any new tags (maybe values?) and we simply need good "rules" (rough logical mappings, maybe tightened up over time, or state-by-state) to apply the Existing 4 or 5 that mappers in the USA agree are crystal-clear, if that's possible.

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
Oops, I meant landuse=recreation_ground.  (Not landuse=recreation_area).  My apologies.
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 Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 2:43 PM OSM Volunteer stevea
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> 1)  As states are as sovereign as the federal government (for purposes of saying "what a park is around here"), the tag boundary=national_park has rather widely been applied to state parks and state-park like lands.  (I know Kevin Kenny has made a good case for why he uses this tag on certain New York state "lands" of a certain sort.  And a lot of state parks in California and other states get this tag.

More or less repeating my earlier argument:

I've applied this tag in exactly two instances: the 'blue line' that
surrounds the Adirondack and Catskill Parks. This line delineates the
portion of the state legally known as the Forest Preserve, and
enshrined in article XIV of the state constitution:
> The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed.

Note that this land is an entirely different kettle of fish from the
areas entitled 'State Park' in New York.

Article XIV confers a sui generis protection, being enshrined at the
constitutional level. Unlike any of the US National Parks, which could
be wiped out by a simple Act of Congress, altering the Forest Preserve
needs a constitutional amendment. The *easiest* way to pass such a
thing is a supermajority vote of both houses of the state legislature,
in two consecutive sessions (with a general election intervening),
followed by a majority in a popular referendum. A number of amendments
have been passed to Article XIV, but they've all been relatively
small-scale changes to the state's holdings, to allow for construction
and maintenance of highways, well fields, utility lines, and similar
facilities. Generally, the amendments that concede land have all been
accompanied by adding land of greater value elsewhere.

The Forest Preserve plays a similar role to a large National Park. The
Catskill Park is of a similar size to a medium National Park like
Joshua Tree; the Adirondack Park would be able to fit Yellowstone,
Everglades, Glacier, Grand Canyon and Yosemite, with room to spare.
LIke some of the National Parks, the state landholdings are complex,
with many inholdings and leaseholds where the state does not own the
land (but highly regulates its use, including in many instances
mandating recreational access when active logging is not in progress).

The definition that appears in the Wiki:
> A  national park is a relatively large area of land declared by a government (just as boundary=administrative are declared/recognised by governments), to be set aside for human recreation and enjoyment, as well as the protection of the natural environment and/or cultural heritage of an area. This would normally also come with restrictions on human activity, particularly development, for the protection of wildlife and scenery. National parks are often named "X national park" (with translation).

is apposite. If US 'National Parks' are 'relatively large', then these
two qualify. The Adirondack Park is larger than any except for the
Alaska mega-parks; the Catskill Park is about of a size with Joshua
Tree or Yosemite.  They are set aside for the purposes mentioned in
the Wiki article. They come with stringent restrictions on
development. They simply are not administered by the Federal
government, because they were established in 1885, thirty-one years
before the National Park Service was established. The only National
Parks in existence were Yellowstone (Wyoming was not yet a state),
Mackinac (turned back to the State of Michigan in 1895), and Rock
Creek (an urban park in the DIstrict of Columbia, and so likewise
outside any state). Yosemite and Sequoia were in existence, as
California 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

stevea
How much consensus IS there for tagging national_park on "large, (important?) state parks" which roughly (or not) meet the national_park definition in our wiki?

We have two in New York, quite a few in California, some in other states.  Do we wish to keep these as they are?  Do we rough out "rules" of when it is appropriate to use this tag?  I might be wrong about this, but it does seem that geographic size (sheer area) does play an important role in whether we might say "yes" or "no."  "How big" is that threshold?  (If any).

I know:  this gets chewy quickly.  Park tagging is difficult when we put things into categories.  We now use four tags to contain a vast universe of parks and park-like things, MANY of which are quite different from one another.  Can we improve upon this or am I simply barking at a tree?

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

Greg Troxel-2
OSM Volunteer stevea <[hidden email]> writes:

> How much consensus IS there for tagging national_park on "large,
> (important?) state parks" which roughly (or not) meet the
> national_park definition in our wiki?

My view is that we should deprecate the national_park tag entirely, and
end up with tags that represent what something is and who
owns/administers it separately.  And generally separate things that are
sane to separate.

Plus, I really doubt that what gets called "national park" in various
countries is the same definition.

_______________________________________________
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
The real problem is that we have two linguistic traditions: one is plain
langauge, and one is tagging tokens.  People keep blurring them, and of
course this is going to continue.  We end up with having to explain
"Just becuase it says 'Foo Park' doesn't mean it's a park."  If we had

#define LEISURE_PARK 0x451

and we were talking about if something were a LEISURE_PARK then it would
be clearer about plain language vs tagging tokens.

OSM Volunteer stevea <[hidden email]> writes:

> So, what emerges is that going forward, leisure=park is as our wiki
> describes it (a smaller, urban-scale, human-sculpted place for
> leisure/recreation), EVEN THOUGH many areas which aren't this are now
> tagged this way.

I think that's a correct assessment.  Except that we have to be careful
about "recreation" -- a place that is largely soccer and baseball fields
is recreation_ground.  If you mean walking around, then agreed.

In Massachusetts, I'd say an interesting data point in distinguishing
"park" vs "nature_reserve" is that in a park you are not that likely to
pick up ticks (ixodes scapularis), and in a nature_reserve it is very
likely.  But that's just a proxy for "sculpted" vs "natural".

> Going forward, NEW "parks" (in the USA) get this tag only as it is
> meant/now wiki-described, as we use the Existing 4 more properly.  In
> other words, it is correct to use the Existing 4 INSTEAD of solely
> leisure=park when appropriate.  Simultaneously, it is inevitable that
> many now-tagged-leisure=parks will have that tag changed to one of the
> other Existing 4.  Yes?

I don't really follow "going forward" and "inevitable".  If you mean:

  We the mailinglist more or less agree, to the extent we ever do, that
  things that don't meet definition above  should not be leisure=park,
  and we should tag those things appropriately, both for new objects,
  and people fixing old objects.

then that sounds right.

Another question is: If we didn't have the special national_park tag,
how would they be tagged?  I would say that most would be
leisure=nature_reserve overall, with perhaps some small segments as
leisure=park, and then a few messy cases (Dry Tortugas, maybe Mesa
Verde).  I don't seriously expect us to get rid of the national_park
tag, so that's a moot point.


_______________________________________________
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:

> It may be emerging that tagging boundary=protected_area (where
> correct) where leisure=park now exists and we delete it, begins to
> supersede leisure=park on many North American now-called-parks.  I
> think that's OK, maybe even overdue.  To be clear, there are plenty of
> "we now call them parks" which are more like protected_area boundary
> areas or maybe "it is what it is today, nothing more."

I think you are not saying that a proper leisure=park should be
protected_area, but that some things which are really protected_area are
mistagged as park.

Here I will mostly talk about leisure=nature_reserve sorts of places, to
include national_park sorts of places that would be
leisure=nature_reserve if we didn't have national_park tags.

I have two problems with the notion of boundary=protected_area:

1) The current landuse is one thing, and legal protection for the future
is another.  Just because something is a nature reserve now doesn't mean
it has legal protection.

A town might own 300 acres of woods, have hiking trails, and have it
signed as "Foo Conservation Area".  That's enough to tag it
landuse=conservation (because that's the current actual landuse) and
leisure=nature_reserve.  But, 20 years from now, they might sell that to
a developer to buy some other land which has conservation value and
enough upland to build that new schoool they want.  So in this case
boundary=protected_area is completely inappropriate.

2) boundary=protected_area is semantically confused, because what is
being tagged is not the boundary, but the status of the area within the
boundary.

Of course, there is a computer-sciency duality between a boundary and
the area within the boundary.  From this viewpoint, things are entirely
equivalent.  But, humans interpret tags other than according to the
strict tagging definition semantics, and they tend to treat
boundary=protected_area as being about the boundary, particularly in
rendering.

With admin boundaries, there is a sense of "the land inside is in this
town", but we have a long cartographic culture of drawing lines on the
map.  These separate towns and states, for example, and it's understood
that this is a large feature and that shading them is not that useful,
except on small-scale maps where there is arbitrary coloring to
visualize that.

With leisure=nature_reserve, leisure=park, golf courses, cemetaries,
schools, etc., we represent them on the map by some kind of shading or
fill.  But, boundary=protected_area is represented by denoting the
border, and this does not serve map users wel.

> I think the greatest thing to "shake out" of this so far is that the
> leisure=park tag can (and should be) frequently be dismissed in
> preference to boundary=protected_area.  This alone will assert a great
> deal of sanity back into things around here.  Whether we invent a tag
> called proto_park ('cause there are such things, the city council just
> hasn't budgeted or spent the money to build it into a more fully
> human-leisure-place, yet).

There is no sanity in boundary=protected_area!  There would be in
area_protected=yes, if it were only used to describe areas that actually
have legal protection (easement or conservation restriction, state or
national And).

That aside, I think favoring boundary=protected_area for parks is a
major step backwards from separating separate concepts.  What is on the
ground, and what the legal protections are against change, are separate
things and should be kept separate.

Arguably, National Parks are no more protected than a parcel of woods
owned by a town (absent any CR/easemetn/state conservation status)
because the owning body can change the rules in the same manner.

In contrast, formal conservation land owned by towns in Mass requires
permission of the state to take out of conservation status.  And there's
the NY example, where the state government can't change things via
normal law.

But, it comes down to "how hard would it be politically", and that's not
really that useful.

_______________________________________________
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 Jmapb
Jmapb <[hidden email]> writes:

> On 4/26/2019 9:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

>> No, I think leisure=playground aligns a bit more closely with "kids
>> play here," though some people like snap-tight definitions, others
>> consider things as much more elastic.  It's difficult to please
>> everybody; semantics can be messy.
>
> Certainly. But speaking as a map user, if I saw a playground on a map
> and then arrived there and found it was just an empty lot or an
> undeveloped bit of land, I would find fault with that map. So if these
> places (kids play here but it's unofficial) are to be mapped, I'd
> suggest different tagging.

THe issue is that leisure=playground does not mean "kids do play here".

It means instead:

  This is a place that has been established as a place to play, and is
  maintained in such a way that such activities are reasonable.  It is
  more or less open to the public (or perhaps associated with a school
  or other facility, or gated community, etc. for exclusive use of their
  people).  It is almost certainly known as a playground or similar to
  those living in the area.

That excludes play sets in back yards, and places where kids go in the
woods in an ad hoc or against-the-rules manner.

It does mean that leisure=playground access=private is going to happen,
in gated community-ish places.  But that's fine, I think.

_______________________________________________
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 Greg Troxel-2
Unless we're going to be clear that a national park is a park
owned/operated by a nation,  I'd be on board with this. Associating it
with size is too ambiguous

On 4/29/19 5:24 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:

> OSM Volunteer stevea <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> How much consensus IS there for tagging national_park on "large,
>> (important?) state parks" which roughly (or not) meet the
>> national_park definition in our wiki?
> My view is that we should deprecate the national_park tag entirely, and
> end up with tags that represent what something is and who
> owns/administers it separately.  And generally separate things that are
> sane to separate.
>
> Plus, I really doubt that what gets called "national park" in various
> countries is the same definition.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Greg Troxel-2
In reply to this post by stevea
One of the things that has come up is "mixed-use parks", where an area
is not clearly one thing or the other.  I see two kinds of cases (with
of course a blurry line between the cases).

One case is an area where there are two kinds of uses close together, in
a way that's hard to draw a sensible line.  More "this place is both"
than "there are two places near each other treated as the same name".
Consider a smallish area that is both leisure=park and
leisure=recreation_ground.  Assume there is some grass with paved paths,
perhaps some flowers, a few trees, and an area with picnic tables,
perhaps with some roofs, and some charcoal grills.  That's clearly
leisure=park.  Then add a pond with swimming and a bath house for
changing.  Or two soccer fields.  Those by themselves are
leisure=recreation_ground.  Assume that this area is one parcel, managed
as one entity, and named as one thing by the owning body.  So how to tag
it?  Here, I would argue that one should simply look the more
significant use, and pick that and don't worry.  I would lean to park
when on the park/recreation_ground line, because the sports fields will
be tagged as pitches, and once those are there, they are rendered and
findable, regardless of the overall area being tagged as
recreation_ground.

The other case is a large area with subareas that are each clearly one
or the other.  Consider:

  1000 acre parcel, almost entirely forest in a natural state, with dirt
  hiking paths

  a 40 acre sub-piece of this on the edge, that is different:
    - paved parking lot
    - visitor center / bathroom building
    - grass and a few trees (city park like)
    - picnic tables, grills

  probably there are different rules for the two pieces.  Dogs might be
  allowed in the 40-acre chunk, but not in the larger forest, for
  example.

  the entire thing is called "Foo State Park", owned by a state
  government.  Legally it is one parcel, and run by the same state
  agency.

I think the basic issue is that we tend to focus on the larger
definition of area and think we must give it one tag, so we frame the
question: "Is this 1000 acre place a =park or a =nature_reserve?".
Stepping back, I see a park and a nature_reserve as separate and related
things.

So, I'd be in favor of having a way on the parcel boundary, and another
denoting the park-type sub-piece, calling those outer and inner and
tagging:

 outer: name="Foo State Park"
 inner: leisure=park
 relation wtih outer/inner: leisure=nature_reserve

Or, perhaps not having a relation and putting leisure=nature_reserve on
the outer, with the expectation that renderers/etc. will resolve the
overapping landuse to the smaller geometry.

(As I see it this applies to many National Parks too, but we don't worry
about that because we just call them national_park.)

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
123