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

Greg Troxel-2
brad <[hidden email]> writes:

>>> 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.

If people in one country have mistagged things, then I think it's ok to
fix that.  I don't think it's ok to ask the rest of the world to change
to accomodate our mistagging.

The notion of what leisure=park means (that many "state parks" aren't
included) has been clear to me for years, from reading the wiki when I
joined OSM.

But I'm not really clear on the total statistics of use of leisure=park
in the US and not in the 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
At today's creation of https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:Key:park:type , I introduce a proposal to reduce usage of the park:type tag (initially, in the USA) with the goal of better clarifying USA park tagging.  There are a couple of "low hanging fruit" tasks we might do as a pilot run, though past these easy ones this will require additional community interaction.  That Discussion page is a good place to do so.

If you think you might offer some perspective on how the many values of park:type (state_park, city_park, state_beach, county_park, national_forest, state_game_land, state_recreational_area, private_park...) might help us better characterize and improve USA park tagging, please take a look at the brief discussion initiated there.  You are invited to participate.

Thank you,
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
The linguist in me feels compelled to be a bit pedantic:  terms like "plain language" and "human language" used to distinguish between data/code/machine kinds of "language," including what we mean by "tagging" or "codepoint" are, I believe, well-expressed with the (linguistic community) phrase "natural language."

Much of what OSM is going through with "park" is because:

1)  leisure=park wasn't clearly defined (this is essentially the most important lesson),
2)  "park" has wide variation in what is meant (I have noted a distinctly American English dialect usage that is much more inclusive than that how OSM defines "park" as in 1),
3)  the drift apart between less-precise (over 15 years of tagging) usage of leisure=park, more-precise definition of leisure=park (which we partly say "what we meant all along" but others disagree, as it was less-precisely defined) has become severe, brought into focus as we recently made more precise the definition of leisure=park.  (Ostensibly to mean "what we meant all along," but which appears to be a significant re-definition to many, especially in the USA, where American English is used and its word "park" shaped the lack of precision definition in our wiki for the first 15 years of OSM).

Well, about there, anyway.  I think most or even all of us know this, I wanted to state it as explicitly as I do here.  These are my opinions, though they rise from long-term observation.

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