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
|

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

brad
It seems that plain language can be used here, and from the Oxford
dictionary, a park is:
" A large public garden or area of land used for recreation."
It doesn't restrict, as the leisure:park wiki does, to smaller, urban
human-sculpted parks.
In CO the county, city (some very large parks), and state parks are
tagged as leisure:park.    This makes sense from the local dialect
perspective as well as the Oxford english.

Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for
recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?

Sorry I'm chiming in late to the discussion, I've been travelling and
mostly unplugged for a week.

On 4/29/19 5:37 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:

> 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


_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Greg Troxel-2
On 4/29/19, Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 well.

If you are talking about the Openstreetmap-carto style (the standard
map layer on openstreetmap.org), then this is not quite correct.

It's true that leisure=park and golf courses are represented by a fill
color for the whole polygon.

However, leisure=natural_reserve, boundary=national_park and
boundary_protected area (with protect_class  1 thru 7 and 97-99) are
currently rendered identically, with a green semi-transparent outline.
(There is also a semi-transparent green fill at low zoom levels).

The other type of boundary is "boundary=aboriginal_lands" and
"boundary = 'protected_area" with "protect_class=24" - these are used
for American Indian and Alaskan Native reservations and other similar
features, and are
rendered with a brown outline.

Military areas and tourist areas (zoos, theme parks) are also rendered
with outlines in red and purple.

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

Private playgrounds (was Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type)

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Greg Troxel-2
29 Apr 2019, 13:56 by [hidden email]:
It does mean that leisure=playground access=private is going to happen,
in gated community-ish places. But that's fine, I think.
Or in schools/kindergartens. (leisure=playground access=private is even supported
by a special rendering in OSM Carto ).

_______________________________________________
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 brad
29 Apr 2019, 15:28 by [hidden email]:
It doesn't restrict, as the leisure:park wiki does, to smaller, urban human-sculpted parks.
I am partially responsible for recent rewrite. The rewrite was supposed to explain how leisure=park
is used in OpenStreetMap, and not redefine meaning of this tag. USA is a tricky case as typical
use of leisure=park was not matching use of leisure=park that was intended and initial and
dominating in other well mapped areas.

Restricting to "human-sculpted parks" was 100% intentional, "smaller" as in "area covering
hundreds square kilometers is extremely unlikely to be leisure=park" was intentional.

Restricting it cities was not intentional and should be fixed if it  happened, some leisure=parks
exist in rural areas.
Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?
That would require redefining leisure=park and while would match use of word "park" in USA
it would start mismatching use of work "park" in UK. It would also start to mismatch how
leisure=park is used in Europe.

Generally British English is preferred in OSM and redefining popular tags is deeply problematic.

If someone feels that leisure=park as described by me here (and partially on Wiki)
misrepresents situation - I would participate in some wider discussion
on global tagging mailing list if someone would start it.

Just recently leisure=park OSM Wiki page was basically without definition and discussion
page had basically failed definition attempt and I hope that was is now on the page is an improvement
over no definition/explanation at all, but...

_______________________________________________
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 Greg Troxel-2
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:05 AM Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.)

That's more or less what I've been doing - tag the outer ring, but
without cutouts for the inner ring(s). (It's also slightly more
complicated than you describe, since the developed areas are
frequently, if indeed not usually, on the margin of the larger park,
but I do understand multipolygon topology and can deal with that case
readily as well.) There's nothing wrong with embedding a
protect_class=1b or a protect_class=4 within a protect_class=2.

The reason for avoiding cutouts is to make it clear what is and is not
part of the named park. Many of the parks that I deal with have
private inholdings that are not part of the park but may be completely
surrounded by it. Those do get cutouts.

I haven't even attempted yet to map the strange intermediate beasts
like public-access conservation easements - common on lumber-company
land - or private leaseholds of public land - common to allow the
larger parks to embed facilities like youth camps that restrict public
access. I'm doing what I can manage!

The smaller state parks - the thousand-acre type that you contemplate
- are often not what IUCN considers to be protected areas, and so I've
taken to using protected_area tagging, but with protection classes
such as 21 (which woud be accompanied with
'protection_object=recreation').  That doesn't render, so as a
stopgap, I've been tagging them 'leisure=nature_reserve' or
'leisure=park', whichever seems to fit, recognizing that further
developments are likely eventually to make the dual tagging
unneccessary. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6442393 is
typical.

What I struggle with is are more complex situations - that may always
necessitate some 'abuse' of tagging. The thousand-acre park with a
forty-acre developed section is handled quite nicely with your scheme.
When you have a 'park' comprising hundreds of thousands, or millions
of acres, operated in public-private partnership, things start to
break down. This is true of New York's two huge parks; of the USA's
larger National Parks; and of US National Monuments, National Forests,
and BLM recreation lands. The outer ring - the legally designated area
- may not really enclose anything recognizable as a 'park', while the
stricter 'park' land management may be somewhat diffuse, in many
discrete protected areas. The larger area is also protected, but
limited sustainable development is often permitted.

Looking at the IUCN definitions, the only class that fits these large
parks is '2' - 'national park'. IUCN, like our Wiki, doesn't actually
require that 'national park' be constituted by a national government.
It simply embodies a hidden assumption that only a nation-state has
the resources to constitute one. leaving the bigger state-defined
facilities in terminologic limbo.

Another odd case that I've mapped a lot of are the undeveloped
recreation areas owned by New York City to protect its water supply.
The city bought them to protect them from development, and allows
public access (in some cases requiring that the user apply for a free
permit, in others, "come one, come all!") I've tagged these with
boundary=protected_area protect_class=12 protection_object=water, and
then added leisure=nature_reserve as a rendering stopgap (because
class 12 doesn't render either).

One reason that I disfavour 'leisure=park' is, simply, the renderer.
(I know, don't tag for the renderer!) The objects that render with
borders (nature_reserve, national_park, protected_area for classes
1-6) don't obscure landcover, so those who wish to map landcover in
these large areas can do so without collision. The only place where
I've really tried to do that has been Bear Mountain - where I was
producing a detailed map for a group outing a couple of years ago. I
didn't push beyond the specific area that I needed.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6467468

The huge protect_class=2 areas in New York tend to turn into
unreadable messes with this scheme, but they'd turn into unreadable
messes with *any* scheme. The land management is simply that
complicated. The area around
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6442393#map=10/44.0624/-73.9723
is simply a patchwork, and nothing will make it pretty.

_______________________________________________
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 Greg Troxel-2
29 Apr 2019, 15:02 by [hidden email]:
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


_______________________________________________
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 Greg Troxel-2
Sorry for a previous empty message. I clicked send too early by an accident.

29 Apr 2019, 15:02 by [hidden email]:
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.
I think I would base deciding whatever leisure=nature_reserve (or boundary=protected_area)
should be multipolygon excluding inner or cover both should be based on a situation.

For example - is leisure=park area exempt from (all/nearly all) rules protecting remaining area?
It is probably should be multipolygon.

Is leisure=park area more intensively used but there are still some real restrictions? Probably
boundary=protected_area should also cover it.

_______________________________________________
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 Mateusz Konieczny-3
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:24 AM Mateusz Konieczny
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?
>
> That would require redefining leisure=park and while would match use of word "park" in USA
> it would start mismatching use of work "park" in UK. It would also start to mismatch how
> leisure=park is used in Europe.
>
> Generally British English is preferred in OSM and redefining popular tags is deeply problematic.

Are we talking about the use of the *tag*, or the use of the *word* in
British English?

If we're talking about the use of the tag, then we get to define it,
but if it is too far removed from a word's commonly understood
meaning, we have to expect extensive mistagging.

If we're talking about the use of the word 'park' in common speech,
the British Isles have ample examples of 'park' being used in a sense
much like the US one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/359617831
happened to be the first one I noticed, but
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/421685070 and others are also
present. If these aren't 'parks' in UK English, why do they exist in
the UK with 'park' in their names?

I also notice that Great Britain has similar situations to the US
national parks, where other land uses are embedded. I see that
Cairngorms National Park
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1947603 embeds at least four
villages (Avlemore, Ballater, Grantown-on-Spey and Kingussie).

_______________________________________________
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 Kevin Kenny-3
Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> writes:

> The smaller state parks - the thousand-acre type that you contemplate
> - are often not what IUCN considers to be protected areas, and so I've
> taken to using protected_area tagging, but with protection classes
> such as 21 (which woud be accompanied with
> 'protection_object=recreation').  That doesn't render, so as a
> stopgap, I've been tagging them 'leisure=nature_reserve' or
> 'leisure=park', whichever seems to fit, recognizing that further
> developments are likely eventually to make the dual tagging
> unneccessary. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6442393 is
> typical.

I completely fail to understand why IUCN protection status has become
the main thing.  Whether something is functioning as a park now seems to
me to have nothing to do with long-term legal protection.   I am not
objecting to tagging the legal status.  I just don't see how denoting
legal status somehow removes the need to describe what is.

> What I struggle with is are more complex situations - that may always
> necessitate some 'abuse' of tagging. The thousand-acre park with a
> forty-acre developed section is handled quite nicely with your scheme.
> When you have a 'park' comprising hundreds of thousands, or millions
> of acres, operated in public-private partnership, things start to
> break down. This is true of New York's two huge parks; of the USA's
> larger National Parks; and of US National Monuments, National Forests,
> and BLM recreation lands. The outer ring - the legally designated area
> - may not really enclose anything recognizable as a 'park', while the
> stricter 'park' land management may be somewhat diffuse, in many
> discrete protected areas. The larger area is also protected, but
> limited sustainable development is often permitted.

Agreed this is messy.  I meant merely to broach the notion of tagging
usage in sub-parts separately from tagging the name of the entity on the
large object.

> Looking at the IUCN definitions, the only class that fits these large
> parks is '2' - 'national park'. IUCN, like our Wiki, doesn't actually
> require that 'national park' be constituted by a national government.
> It simply embodies a hidden assumption that only a nation-state has
> the resources to constitute one. leaving the bigger state-defined
> facilities in terminologic limbo.

I would ask if it's really a good thing that OSM has adopted IUCN as the
basis for what is and is not a park.  It seems to me that it's causing
trouble.

> Another odd case that I've mapped a lot of are the undeveloped
> recreation areas owned by New York City to protect its water supply.
> The city bought them to protect them from development, and allows
> public access (in some cases requiring that the user apply for a free
> permit, in others, "come one, come all!") I've tagged these with
> boundary=protected_area protect_class=12 protection_object=water, and
> then added leisure=nature_reserve as a rendering stopgap (because
> class 12 doesn't render either).

We used to have "landuse=reservoir_protection" (although maybe these
places are watershed protection, not reservoir).  Part of what I object
to about the IUCN hegemony is the view that everything should be turned
into some complicated protect_class and other tagging removed.

But, in this case, your approach seems reasonable in terms of denoting
the landuse.

I would argue that if people are welcome, then in addition to whatever
protection tags, it deserves "leisure=nature_reserve" *also*.  There is
no reason to conclude from "water protection" that humans are or are not
allowed.  Near me, there is reservoir protection land, and it has "no
trespassing - public water supply" signs.  I think the protection
tagging ought to match your case (but maybe protection_object=reservoir
instead of =water), but also access=no and definitely no nature_reserve.

(I agree with your notion that free permit means access=yes to first
order.)

> One reason that I disfavour 'leisure=park' is, simply, the renderer.
> (I know, don't tag for the renderer!) The objects that render with
> borders (nature_reserve, national_park, protected_area for classes
> 1-6) don't obscure landcover, so those who wish to map landcover in
> these large areas can do so without collision. The only place where
> I've really tried to do that has been Bear Mountain - where I was
> producing a detailed map for a group outing a couple of years ago. I
> didn't push beyond the specific area that I needed.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6467468

There is a much larger issue in the standard style between landuse and
landcover, and not having an integrated vision for which is rendered
how, to avoid colliding.

Around me, golf courses have a color fill and nature_reserve doesn't,
and that has always seemed broken.

_______________________________________________
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 stevea
29 Apr 2019, 05:12 by [hidden email]:
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?
It seems that national_park is likely to be affected by problem similar to leisure=park.
Many countries have things  called "national park" that are some form of nature protection
but details are very different.

Given that there is viable alternative that may be less ambiguous it may be preferable to
avoid national_park or at least be aware that meaning is likely to be strongly affected by regional
differences.

For example:
in Poland "national park" is basically "large/very large nature reserve that has stronger legal
protections and is more famous". Some of them are tiny (probably comically tiny by USA standards)
like Ojcowski Park Narodowy ("Park Narodowy" directly translates into "Naional Park")

I am tempted to treat boundary=protected_area as preferable, despite that tags specifying exact type
are unreadable codes.

(I am loudly thinking here, and not sue what exactly should be done here)


_______________________________________________
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 Mateusz Konieczny-3



29 Apr 2019, 17:36 by [hidden email]:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:24 AM Mateusz Konieczny
Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?

That would require redefining leisure=park and while would match use of word "park" in USA
it would start mismatching use of work "park" in UK. It would also start to mismatch how
leisure=park is used in Europe.

Generally British English is preferred in OSM and redefining popular tags is deeply problematic.

Are we talking about the use of the *tag*, or the use of the *word* in
British English?
It is supposed to be about both, I attempted to check both but I open to discovering that I am mistaken.
In case of British English I attempted to consult with people who are native speakers of BE
and people better in English than myself but maybe my questions/examples failed to capture
cases of what should be described park (and or leisure=park).

I know that it is possible, that is part of the reason why I posted quoted message (it would be embarassing
to discover that my claims were wrong but I prefer to discover as soon as possible).
If we're talking about the use of the word 'park' in common speech,
the British Isles have ample examples of 'park' being used in a sense
happened to be the first one I noticed, but
present. If these aren't 'parks' in UK English, why do they exist in
the UK with 'park' in their names?
Neither of them is tagged leisure=park and it seems that
"national park" is in some way similar to "business park" or "industrial park"
- word park is in the name but it is not considered as a special case
of "green human-sculpted landscape" that is commonly referred to as
a "park".

Note that I may be mistaken here, my check was quick sanity check of
a biased group of people not some scientific research
I also notice that Great Britain has similar situations to the US
national parks, where other land uses are embedded. I see that
Cairngorms National Park
villages (Avlemore, Ballater, Grantown-on-Spey and Kingussie).
This one is not surprising to me, it is probably result of compromise/conflict
resulting in potected area with some objects that are contrary to any
nature protection attempts.
Poland has cases of legal large-scale active logging in Tatra mountains
that is result of conflict between local people and desire to protect nature.

- conflict dates back to creation of the Tatrzański Park Narodowy (=Tatra National Park).

See also motorways going sometimes through protected or "protected" areas.

_______________________________________________
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

Andy Townsend
On 29/04/2019 17:04, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:



29 Apr 2019, 17:36 by [hidden email]:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:24 AM Mateusz Konieczny
<[hidden email]> wrote:
Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?

That would require redefining leisure=park and while would match use of word "park" in USA
it would start mismatching use of work "park" in UK. It would also start to mismatch how
leisure=park is used in Europe.

Generally British English is preferred in OSM and redefining popular tags is deeply problematic.

Are we talking about the use of the *tag*, or the use of the *word* in
British English?
It is supposed to be about both, I attempted to check both but I open to discovering that I am mistaken.
In case of British English I attempted to consult with people who are native speakers of BE
and people better in English than myself but maybe my questions/examples failed to capture
cases of what should be described park (and or leisure=park).

I know that it is possible, that is part of the reason why I posted quoted message (it would be embarassing
to discover that my claims were wrong but I prefer to discover as soon as possible).

With regard to British English usage, I think you're correct*.  Something described here as a "park" would pretty much match the current description at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark (without the urban requirement, but you've already talked about that).  In the UK a "national park" (or something like the Pentland Hills Regional Park which was already mentioned) isn't really a subset of "park" in any way - it's something else altogether.

National Parks such as Yellowstone were established in the US many years ago as pretty much their own thing - they're almost nothing like parks such as Derby Arboretum (arguably the first public park in Britain).  In concept Britain's "National Parks" owe more to the American National Parks than they do to earlier local parks.  There are significant differences in how they are managed and run, but the model was borrowed from the US.  The fact that the "Peak District National Park" has the word "park" in it does not make it a "park" in the normally understood sense.

Turning to things in the US, there's no way that I'd describe https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3003169/history ("Joseph D Grant County Park") as "more like" Derby Arboretum / Golden Gate Park than the Peak District National Park in England or Yosemite.  Sure, it's a sliding scale, with most bits of Joseph D Grant significantly "less wild" than Yosemite, but my impression of it after having been there is "not really a park in the British English sense".

Obviously different communities worldwide stretch OSM tags to match local differences and important local distinctions that may not exist in the British English tag definitions (for example, apparently German gravel has a different name depending on whether it's sharp or rounded), and it's up to the US community to decide how to tag things in the US, but I'd suggest that substantially broadening the usage of a tag that means something else everywhere else is not the best approach.

Best Regards,

Andy

* for the benefit of anyone who may not know, I'm a native English (British) English speaker.


_______________________________________________
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 do think it important we hear about distinctions between British English (and how it had a defining influence on much tagging in OSM), and American English, which I often say distinctly affected the way Americans have used the leisure=park tag.  "Park" in American English is much more encompassing than "park" in British English AND leisure=park, and whether good or bad, this semantic sense of the word has blurred US tagging to be wide and wild.  OK, enough history.  (The problem may be worldwide in OSM, with the US having its own quirky reasons and tangles).  Then, there is what we might do going forward.

I am heartened to see so much earnest discussion.  Yet I feel the same way Mateusz does when he says while thinking loudly, he is not sure "what exactly should be done here."  Yes.

And this is not the first time similar discussion has happened.  A result is things mostly grind along as they have.  Or perhaps (as with the introduction of the boundary=protected_area, ostensibly created as a new scheme to solve many things), we get MORE complexity.  I wish I didn't sound so negative or like I'm sowing chaos — I'm not — genuinely, I would love to see clarity emerge, yet it seems elusive.  Though I'll say it again:  talk, talk and more talk, while tedious and even exhausting sometimes, seems it's better than not talking, as sometimes a kernel of better understanding shakes out.  I continue to hold out for that here.

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

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

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
oops, meant to send this to the list...

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type
To: Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>


On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:06 PM Mateusz Konieczny
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> It is supposed to be about both, I attempted to check both but I open to discovering that I am mistaken.
> In case of British English I attempted to consult with people who are native speakers of BE
> and people better in English than myself but maybe my questions/examples failed to capture
> cases of what should be described park (and or leisure=park).

The earliest use of the word 'park' in English is attested to in the
13th Century - in which it means 'enclosed preserve for hunting.' The
great estates would maintain 'parks' that they would stock with beasts
of the chase.

The use of 'park' in its urban meaning entered the language some four
hundred years later, as London was being rebuilt after the Great
Plague and the Great Fire.  It began to sprawl, and tracts of land
were reserved to be kept in a quasi-natural state, or at least
protected from urban development, for public recreation. The name
extended in this way partly because the laws that had established
royal hunting preserves were repurposed to protect land in this way.
Civic pride made these parks highly sculpted, displaying an idealized
landscape, hence the urban use of the word 'park.'

'Park' in the sense of 'baseball park' - a sporting field - is an
Americanism dating to the 1860's.

'Car park' came from the fact that people visiting cities would use
the public parks as a place to leave their carriages, and later their
automobiles, and so 'parking' was born.

'Industrial park' and so on are 20th-century innovations, I suspect
from the advertising agencies and real estate agents.

> Neither of them is tagged leisure=park and it seems that
> "national park" is in some way similar to "business park" or "industrial park"
> - word park is in the name but it is not considered as a special case
> of "green human-sculpted landscape" that is commonly referred to as
> a "park".

'Park' in the sense of 'preserved natural land' (originally for
hunting, but the sense broadened as natural areas were preserved for
other purposes) and 'park' in the sense of 'sculpted, idealized
landscape' march hand in hand through the last 350 years or so, and
'preserved natural land' is the earlier sense of the word.

> This one is not surprising to me, it is probably result of compromise/conflict
> resulting in potected area with some objects that are contrary to any
> nature protection attempts.
> Poland has cases of legal large-scale active logging in Tatra mountains
> that is result of conflict between local people and desire to protect nature.
>
> See https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wsp%C3%B3lnota_Le%C5%9Bna_Uprawnionych_O%C5%9Bmiu_Wsi
> - conflict dates back to creation of the Tatrzański Park Narodowy (=Tatra National Park).
>
> See also motorways going sometimes through protected or "protected" areas.

One reason that the boundary lines in New York's big parks are such a
mess is that transportation and utility corridors, well fields,
cemeteries, and similar land uses are officially cut out of the
protected areas.
Much logging happens in the areas of lesser protection. They are
protected from development - the land owners can't build on them, or
are restricted to extremely low-density development - but sustainable
logging practices are permitted on many of the inholdings. In many
cases the timber companies also have easements against them requiring
public access when active logging is not in progress.

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

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

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
oops, sent to wrong list
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:36 PM
Subject: Fwd: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type
To: OSM Tagging mailing list <[hidden email]>


Using a British dictionary (Living Oxford Dictionary), the first
definition of 'park' is:

1 A large public garden or area of land used for recreation.
‘a walk round the park’
‘a country park’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/park

The 'or public garden' implies that the area *may* be human sculpted,
but there is no separate definition to encompass 'regional park'.
There is a separate entry for 'national park', and under 'park' there
are entries to cover the 'park' of a country house, a 'wildlife park',
'park' as another word for 'playground', 'park' as an informal word
for 'football pitch' (borrowed from the American usage) and the
Americanism 'sports park' - and then a second sense of any area
devoted to a specific purpose ('industrial park', 'office park'), plus
a third designating the 'park' position of the gear selector on an
automatic transmission.

I'm fine with 'leisure=park' being more specific, but we have to be
very clear what we mean because it's more restrictive than even UK
English (to say nothing of CANZUS, where 'park' for the large regional
parks is surely common), and we have to expect mistagging,
particularly in light of the fact that the rest of the
English-speaking world has tagged a lot of parks with the looser
language that used to be on the Wiki.

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

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

brad
Agreed, emphasis in Kevin's text is mine.
It looks like some of this redefinition of the park tag is new?   ie the human sculpted part, and the attempt to restrict the usage.    Perhaps clarity is needed, but more narrowly defined than the Oxford dictionary, or common usage, is not needed.   

On 4/29/19 12:38 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
oops, sent to wrong list
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kevin Kenny [hidden email]
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:36 PM
Subject: Fwd: [Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type
To: OSM Tagging mailing list [hidden email]


Using a British dictionary (Living Oxford Dictionary), the first
definition of 'park' is:

1 A large public garden or area of land used for recreation.
‘a walk round the park’
‘a country park’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/park

The 'or public garden' implies that the area *may* be human sculpted,
but there is no separate definition to encompass 'regional park'.
There is a separate entry for 'national park', and under 'park' there
are entries to cover the 'park' of a country house, a 'wildlife park',
'park' as another word for 'playground', 'park' as an informal word
for 'football pitch' (borrowed from the American usage) and the
Americanism 'sports park' - and then a second sense of any area
devoted to a specific purpose ('industrial park', 'office park'), plus
a third designating the 'park' position of the gear selector on an
automatic transmission.

I'm fine with 'leisure=park' being more specific, but we have to be
very clear what we mean because it's more restrictive than even UK
English (to say nothing of CANZUS, where 'park' for the large regional
parks is surely common), and we have to expect mistagging,
particularly in light of the fact that the rest of the
English-speaking world has tagged a lot of parks with the looser
language that used to be on the Wiki.

_______________________________________________
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 brad
brad <[hidden email]> writes:

> It seems that plain language can be used here, and from the Oxford
> dictionary, a park is:

No.  Plain language cannot be used to define what tags mean.  Each tag
is actually a codepoint, not human language, and needs a definition.
That is fundamental to how tagging works in OSM.

> Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for
> recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?

Because we have existing norms, and it is not generally a good idea to
ask that tagging of thousands of objects be thrown out and redone.

_______________________________________________
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 Joseph Eisenberg
Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> writes:

> On 4/29/19, Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 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 well.
>
> If you are talking about the Openstreetmap-carto style (the standard
> map layer on openstreetmap.org), then this is not quite correct.
>
> It's true that leisure=park and golf courses are represented by a fill
> color for the whole polygon.
>
> However, leisure=natural_reserve, boundary=national_park and
> boundary_protected area (with protect_class  1 thru 7 and 97-99) are
> currently rendered identically, with a green semi-transparent outline.
> (There is also a semi-transparent green fill at low zoom levels).

Sorry, I was off on nature_reserve.   But my point is that we have fill
sometimes and sometimes not, and that focusing on thinking about
boundary seems to lead to not filling, and I think that's unfortunate.

It's at high zooms that I think the fill is needed; some of these are
large enough that zooming in means the border isn't showing.

> Military areas and tourist areas (zoos, theme parks) are also rendered
> with outlines in red and purple.

Military at least also has a fill pattern, so they are not just
observable from the edges.  I have no problem with special edges; my
complaint is the decision that no fill is necessary.

_______________________________________________
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 Andy Townsend
Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> writes:

> With regard to British English usage, I think you're
> correct*. Something described here as a "park" would pretty much match
> the current description at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark (without the
> urban requirement, but you've already talked about that).  In the UK a
> "national park" (or something like the Pentland Hills Regional Park
> which was already mentioned) isn't really a subset of "park" in any
> way - it's something else altogether.

So it seems that the definition of leisure=park we have converged on in
the US matches more or less leisure=park and what humans mean when
speaking en_UK.  That seems like a very sane place to be.

_______________________________________________
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


On 4/29/19 4:11 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> brad <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> It seems that plain language can be used here, and from the Oxford
>> dictionary, a park is:
> No.  Plain language cannot be used to define what tags mean.  Each tag
> is actually a codepoint, not human language, and needs a definition.
> That is fundamental to how tagging works in OSM.
Agreed, but the tag language should be close to human language where
possible
>
>> Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for
>> recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?
> Because we have existing norms, and it is not generally a good idea to
> ask that tagging of thousands of objects be thrown out and redone.
OK, but I think that's what you're asking for if county parks, state
parks, and large city parks can't be tagged as parks.

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