Re: Potential vandalism in Northern California (Pokémon Go?)

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

Re: Potential vandalism in Northern California (Pokémon Go?)

stevea
On Jan 3, 2018, at 4:00 AM, Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Currently the wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark defines an OSM "leisure=park" using a few words, and illustrates it with a picture of part of Central Park in New York.  It then goes on to say that "leisure=park" shouldn't be used for national parks.  It uses Yosemite at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=10/37.8230/-119.5060 as an example national park ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1643367 for info ).
>
> I'd suggest that the state and county parks in CA such as for example Joseph D Grant https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3003169 are less like Central Park than they are like Yosemite.   They might not be close enough to warrant a "boundary=national_park" tag, and some other tag (some sort of protected_area?) might be more appropriate, but they're definitely not an OSM "leisure=park" in a "does it quack like a duck" sense as per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging.  On Joseph D Grant someone has added a "park:type=county_park" tag to try and help data consumers distinguish it from other "leisure=park"s, but that doesn't really say anything about what it's like, just who looks after it.

While this is talk-us and not argue-us, I don't want an argument; it is dialog that allows us to reach consensus.  I quote exactly those "few words" in our wiki to define a park:  "A park is an area of open space provided for recreational use, usually designed and in semi-natural state with grassy areas, trees and bushes. Parks are often but not always municipal."  (There is a bit more about being fenced and/or closed at night, not germane here).  I think we both can agree that Joseph D Grant Park (JDG) in California meets that definition.  The photo of Central Park in NYC is something we can also agree is exemplary of what is meant by a park, but any such example will necessarily be different in many ways from every other park, large or small, municipal or otherwise.  I emphasize our wiki says "parks are not always municipal."  This is the case with JDG, so I re-affirm here and now its leisure=park tag as correct.  Having "Park" in its name seems an obvious companion to this statement.

Yes, there is an additional section about "National Parks."  It says "Parks in isolated, rural locations (namely areas called "National Parks") are (different)."  While I cannot disagree that National Parks ARE "different" than the implied definition above (they have a national operator instead of municipal, they offer outstanding, world-class opportunities to recreate and enjoy natural beauty...) the contradiction implied is not exclusionary.  In other words, just because national parks are implied as different from "municipal" parks (those might be state, county, city, neighborhood, religious and/or private) it does not mean that a large municipal park that might "more resemble" a national park isn't a park.  A major issue I have with your approach is that "in isolated rural locations" is a slightly fuzzy definition, so we might never agree on where a "hard disambiguation" between these two (rather arbitrary, in fact) categories bifurcates.

Having seriously scratched my head about this for almost 9 years, I noticed that problem/ambiguities seem to stem from this rather artificial bifurcation into exactly TWO categories of park:  "national" and "otherwise, not national."  This is clearly over-simplistic given the world's myriad parks and their administration.  It is destined to fail both in the minds of OSM volunteers who "want to do the right thing" (tag parks properly) as well as renderers trying to shoehorn all parks into "park" or "national park," when there are so many other park-like or actual park-like entities.  In 2009, (along with Apo42's useful habit of tagging with "park_type=county_park" (et al)), I posited the idea that park boundary rendering could benefit from different colors of dashing depending on the jurisdiction of the park.  Quoting from my wiki user page,

"This would be similar to how boundary=national_park creates a dashed-green boundary, but with different colored dashing for different levels of jurisdiction, from local playgrounds to national parks, or even UN World Heritage sites. There are many complex overlapping park boundaries of various levels of jurisdiction in California, especially in very far northern California. The intent is to communicate these in a way that the OSM community both accepts and finds pleasing to the eye so that even map consumers uninitiated with the sometimes subtle semiotics of cartographic jurisdiction can visually parse complex park boundaries with ease."

As that strays a LONG way from Pokémon Go Vandalism (PGV), I acknowledge it may be time to break out this discussion of how to tag JDG into another (titled) thread.

We agree that additional tags of protected_area are likely appropriate on JDG and parks similar to it.  This is a much larger issue (and task) which might be applied to all parks of whatever "level" or jurisdiction/administration, but we have not fully addressed it.  Perhaps we start to do so here and now.  Another topic and thread.

I agree with Duck_tagging, and say we should leave the leisure=park tag on JDG and parks like it:  it is named Park, it "quacks like a park."  I do not agree with what seems to be an overly strict interpretation of the leisure=park tag where Andy says "state and county parks...are definitely not an OSM leisure=park."  They are.  I believe Andy's interpretation stems from the artificially strict limitation that we have only two types of parks in the world (and hence OSM):  national and "otherwise."  Again, please note that the definition of park explicitly states that "parks are not always municipal."  Ipso facto, JDG is a park.

>> 2)  Landuse is not landcover and vice versa.
>
> Indeed (and OSM is confusing about how it tags both of those) but that's not really relevant to the current discussion.  Bits of a state park may be covered with trees, and some of those trees might be primarily there for future logging (or not) but that is a separate issue to the legal status of the state park and who owns and operates the land.  There may be rules about uses that people can't use the land in a state or national park for, but that's normally different what it is currently used for.  OSM has tags that start "landuse=", "natural=" and to a lesser extent "landcover=", but those landuse tags aren't just about land use and not all "natural" things are truly natural.

Right, I agree it is only tangentially germane here (if that), and largely to remind us that this is an example of the root of much misunderstanding giving rise to potential or actual tagging disputes.  Unclear, ambiguous or overly-simplistic definitions (in our wiki) also give rise such disputes.  It seems the solution here is to address the specific issue of whether there are two (and only two) kinds of parks in OSM.  I think not, but our wiki seems to have implied this for quite a while and it continues to give rise to misunderstandings and tagging disputes.  Also, let's agree that "parks are not always municipal" (as we explicitly say so) and that seems to largely settle JDG and parks like it (a subsequent paragraph on National Parks notwithstanding).  And (much lower temperature) we can do BETTER than "solve" these issues by reducing or eliminating ambiguity by taking the extra step of bolstering those firm definitions with beautiful renderings (as I suggested almost a decade ago).  This could make OSM a BETTER map than most (perhaps all) others, and there isn't anything wrong with efforts to do that!

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

Re: Potential vandalism in Northern California (Pokémon Go?)

Greg Troxel-2

I think the National Park term causes a lot of problems.   As I see it,
there are two kinds of places:

  1) a natural area with some accomodation for human use, which is mostly
  natural except for a few bits.

  2) a semi-natural area which has grass and trees (instead of
  concrete), but is fairly manicured.  In this way it is more like a
  maintained garden than wilderness..

Both of these exist at various scales.

Point 1 is leisure=nature_reserve, more or less.  If there is legal
protection (which is separate from what's there now), it should get
some sort of "landuse=conservation", "boundary=protected_area", or the
special kind of protected_area with an implied leisure=nature_reserve
known as boundary=national_park.

Point 2 is leisure=park.

In New England, in type 1 you are probably going to get ticks, and in
type 2 you probably aren't.

One of the real difficulties is that in areas athat are type 1, such as
a lot of state parks, and national parks, there are significant
sub-areas, often bigger than many town parks, that are very much type 2.

As an example, in Yellowstone, the 6 or so villages where there are
hotels, general stores, maybe a gas station, places with picnic tables,
boardwalks, feel like type 2.   But once you leave those pretty small
areas, you are almost in wilderness.

A "conservation area" in my town might be only 100 acres.  You are in
the forest, with just a cleared trail and blazes.  But at the entrance,
there is a dirt parking lot and a sign with a map.  This is a type 1
area with a very small (enough for 10 cars) part that almost feels a
little type 2 (except the parking lot is barely usable), but it's so
small we just call it type 1.

Whether anybody (administrator of thing or not) uses the work Park is
not relevant at all.

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

signature.asc (167 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Parks, again

stevea
On Jan 3, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think the National Park term causes a lot of problems.   As I see it,
> there are two kinds of places:
>
>  1) a natural area with some accomodation for human use, which is mostly
>  natural except for a few bits.
>
>  2) a semi-natural area which has grass and trees (instead of
>  concrete), but is fairly manicured.  In this way it is more like a
>  maintained garden than wilderness..
>
> Both of these exist at various scales.

I hear you.  I'm listening.  This is all true.  There are also 3), 4) and many, many others.  Yes.

Our definition of "park" (both as humans and in OSM) is quite elastic, let's face it.

As you say "feel like Type 2" I think is where it fuzzies in my mind.  Parks go to 3, 4, even 11 and beyond.  Parks have a wide range of "experiences" besides 1 and 2.

> A "conservation area" in my town might be only 100 acres.  You are in
> the forest, with just a cleared trail and blazes.  But at the entrance,
> there is a dirt parking lot and a sign with a map.  This is a type 1
> area with a very small (enough for 10 cars) part that almost feels a
> little type 2 (except the parking lot is barely usable), but it's so
> small we just call it type 1.

Again, I hear this, this is true, I nod my head in agreement.  There is what we experience in the real world and yes, that maps directly onto a tag in OSM.  Park is that.  States use it.  Nations use it.  "Come camp here for the night or a week" places which are commercial use it.  It is elastic in the real world and many use it, as we call myriad of them by using the name park in our speech as a noun.  It is a wide and flexible concept in human thinking, directly applied to all kinds of places around the world.  By billions of us.  Frequently.

> Whether anybody (administrator of thing or not) uses the work Park is
> not relevant at all.

Mmm, no.  We (humanity, including administrators and the people) mean something as we use the word "park" together in wide harmony.  That is (at least partly!) why we tag with the word "park."

Yes, there are "local parks with benches and grass in our city."  Yes, there are "national parks."  We're only up to two, right there.  Then you get to their various scales.  There are many more than two.

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

Re: Parks, again

Bradley White
> As you say "feel like Type 2" I think is where it fuzzies in my mind.  Parks go to 3, 4, even 11 and beyond.  Parks have a wide range of "experiences" besides 1 and 2.

So do roads. There are countless kinds of roads, with varying levels
of importance and physical features. Instead of using a catch-all
"highway=road" tag, and instead of tagging infinitesimal levels of
network importance (or any of the other countless possible metrics),
we develop a classification system that allocates all roads into a
small set of (semi)-easy-to-work-with-and-understand classes. Some
roads don't fit well into this system, true. It isn't always clean; it
can be ambiguous; it continues to be debated over, and that's fine.
But, for the most part, it has worked, certainly better than the
all-or-nothing alternatives would have.

I agree with previous posters that this is same case with parks. In
the same way that the fact that there is something different enough
about a freeway and a narrow county back-road to represent them
differently in the database, there is something different enough about
a park I would take a kid to play on the playground for an hour, and a
park that I can spend half the day mountain biking around in without
encountering more than a small handful of people, that I think they
should be differentiated between in our data. I don't think the title
given to a piece of land should necessarily have bearing on the data
representation, in the same way "Hampstead Heath" doesn't get
"natural=heath" just because it's in the name.

Currently, I use the tagging scheme detailed by Greg earlier. I am
certainly not opposed to using "leisure=park" along with a basic
classification tag, say "park=developed/undeveloped" or something, but
Greg's scheme has the benefit of using established tags with rendering
support that still more or less respect the definition and intent of
the tags. While "leisure=nature_reserve" has generally assumed some
kind of conservation status, I think the newish
"boundary=protected_area" tags do a much better job detailing land
conservation, and that "leisure=nature_reserve" is the perfect tag to
adopt for the type 1 parks which Greg talks about. These 'type 1'
parks are, after all, pieces of *nature* being *reserved* by a
government agency for *leisure* of the public.

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

Re: Parks, again

stevea
In reply to this post by stevea
On January 4, 2018 at 6:21:03 PM PST, Bradley White <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> As you say "feel like Type 2" I think is where it fuzzies in my mind.  Parks go to 3, 4, even 11 and beyond.  Parks have a wide range of "experiences" besides 1 and 2.
>
> So do roads. There are countless kinds of roads, with varying levels
> of importance and physical features. Instead of using a catch-all
> "highway=road" tag, and instead of tagging infinitesimal levels of
> network importance (or any of the other countless possible metrics),
> we develop a classification system that allocates all roads into a
> small set of (semi)-easy-to-work-with-and-understand classes. Some
> roads don't fit well into this system, true. It isn't always clean; it
> can be ambiguous; it continues to be debated over, and that's fine.
> But, for the most part, it has worked, certainly better than the
> all-or-nothing alternatives would have.

I believe you are saying (agreeing) that "roads have many flavors."  Yes.  We have many highway=* tags to accommodate those, and while there remain some sticky difficulty in a few corner cases, as we map with values motorway, primary, trunk, secondary, tertiary... OSM (recall, "Street" is our middle name) does well as a result.  The tag "highway=road" is not a "catch-all" tag applied recklessly to any and all roads:  for the most part roads are tagged with the above (more correct, more precise) values and "highway=road" is left for more ambiguous cases, for example when fuzzy aerial imagery suggests a road/highway, but little or nothing else is known.  If I got any of that wrong, please gently correct me.  Although, I think we are largely in agreement:  we both (and many of us in OSM) use the highway= tag with little argument or consequence.  (Again, in a few minor cases, discussion continues).

> I agree with previous posters that this is same case with parks. In
> the same way that the fact that there is something different enough
> about a freeway and a narrow county back-road to represent them
> differently in the database, there is something different enough about
> a park I would take a kid to play on the playground for an hour, and a
> park that I can spend half the day mountain biking around in without
> encountering more than a small handful of people, that I think they
> should be differentiated between in our data. I don't think the title
> given to a piece of land should necessarily have bearing on the data
> representation, in the same way "Hampstead Heath" doesn't get
> "natural=heath" just because it's in the name.

I don't know to which previous posters you refer (this is a new thread I've broken off) and I am not sure of the point with which you are agreeing.  If I had to guess (I prefer not guessing) it seems you mean that OSM could benefit from a wide array of park tagging similar to how it enjoys a wide array of highway tagging.  I do not disagree, meaning I agree.  Sure, early on we seem to have "broken out" (from "generic parks") the specific semantic of "national_park."  As I said before, doing so (and where we are now), brings us up from one type of park (all of them) up to two (a certain kind of them excluding the rest), with two being a very small number.  There might be dozens or even hundreds of types of parks, and refining this to exactitude and full consensus all across Earth could take OSM decades, with much tedious and messy "sausage making" along the way.  Not that it wouldn't be valuable to do so (it would be) since as a result of those efforts, OSM might become one of the best park maps ever made of our whole planet.  Alas, as "street" IS our middle name, we've come closer to the goal of well-describing our highway networks, rather than our parks.  Though, parks (and many, many other objects in OSM) are somewhat well-represented, I think many agree.  We crawl before we walk, we walk before we run.

However, we haven't really well or fully described parks.  We only partially describe them, which "isn't nothing."  (I'm happy to accept this, use it to enter parks, AND improve on our park entry schema).  As I mentioned,  in 2009 Apo42 in California got into the (good, in my opinion) habit of adding to a (partial, though substantial) statewide parks import a new (back then) tag of "park:type" which often blended jurisdiction, type of natural area and/or purpose.  For example, some of its values are county_park, state_beach and state_historical_reserve.  This was an early, first foray into better characterizing what California's Department of State Parks throws into a large bin called "parks," (all of them, from beaches to historical reserves) while using the state's own data to better sub-categorize them.  As you say, there are all kinds of purposes for what humanity calls "park" and it would be good for OSM to capture these aspects.  What we haven't done is talk about what vast issues this gives rise to, primary:  what is important?  Jurisdiction?  The season and/or hours a given park is open?  Whether it allows campfires?  These and many other aspects (like other places, parks are a terrific example of how well OSM can "show" these) of various amenities (restrooms, campgrounds, specific recreation facilities like ski lifts or improved bike trails...) can be and are entered in OSM to good effect.  However, I think we can all agree we might do a whole lot better.  The "big iceberg beneath" are the vast and myriad kinds of things humanity means when we utter the word "park" (on a tag in OSM, or when a city, county, state, nation, campground company... calls a chunk of land one).

> Currently, I use the tagging scheme detailed by Greg earlier. I am
> certainly not opposed to using "leisure=park" along with a basic
> classification tag, say "park=developed/undeveloped" or something, but
> Greg's scheme has the benefit of using established tags with rendering
> support that still more or less respect the definition and intent of
> the tags. While "leisure=nature_reserve" has generally assumed some
> kind of conservation status, I think the newish
> "boundary=protected_area" tags do a much better job detailing land
> conservation, and that "leisure=nature_reserve" is the perfect tag to
> adopt for the type 1 parks which Greg talks about. These 'type 1'
> parks are, after all, pieces of *nature* being *reserved* by a
> government agency for *leisure* of the public.

Let's tag as our wiki defines.  If we don't, our project will eventually self-destruct into an ooze of ambiguity from a tragic lack of consensus.  Words mean what words mean, tags as defined in our wiki mean what the wiki says they mean.  "Your" examples (or "his," or "theirs...") provide valuable insight into what is meant by park, but please don't let "your" examples restrict what the rest of humanity includes in "park."  Improvements to tagging schema have been successfully proposed and implemented, even to the point where they are rendered (this seems crucial to eventually complete, though it can work by being on a parallel and slower track).  Whether or not there is rendering support is something to consider, yes, but let's not tag for the renderer AS IF it is the only consideration.  We could do that with parks, though we are a long, long way from doing so.  Simply because something isn't one of two things doesn't mean it isn't something, especially when "one" is an all-encompassing categorization of exactly that thing.  We can do better by understanding this simple fact.

(Paraphrasing from a side-channel communication):  I know that there are posters on 'tagging' who believe we all live in a world of neat regimentation of perfect information, precisely fitting a schema.  Mmm, no.  Not always.  Language can be ambiguous, in which case it must be disambiguated so we may better understand each other.  Sometimes, what is needed is a better classification schema to do so.  OSM and parks?  We're not there yet.  This is not a major problem in OSM, but it does give rise to exactly these sorts of misunderstandings.  Let's continue to allow leisure=park to remain as elastic as it has been for the existence of this project, improving upon it if we wish to do so.

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

Re: Parks, again

stevea
On January 4, 2018 at 6:21:03 PM PST, Bradley White <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I don't think the title
>> given to a piece of land should necessarily have bearing on the data
>> representation, in the same way "Hampstead Heath" doesn't get
>> "natural=heath" just because it's in the name.

I forgot to make this point in my previous post.  The British English convention of calling a (sometimes municipal) park-like area "Hampstead Heath" being explicitly stated as a different semantic than what OSM tags "natural=heath" is an important distinction to make, and I'm glad our wiki does so.

However, by way of contrast, something called "Park" generally IS a park:  I seldom, if ever, find an exception to this.  As long as that is true (and contrasts sharply with "heath" as you and our wiki remind us), I'll continue to tag something named "Park" with leisure=park.  Yes, sometimes I'll use leisure=nature_reserve, but guess what?  That's because it's name contains "Nature Reserve" or "Open Space Reserve" or some other set of English words that map directly onto the tag "leisure=nature_reserve."

So, while it doesn't NECESSARILY have bearing, I am an intelligent enough user of language (and its derived semantics) to "properly" map these semantics to specific syntax tags in OSM.  All OSM volunteers must do at least a little bit of this, and we can even talk about the more subtle aspects of doing so in a forum like talk-us.

Our tag of park, I continue to assert most assiduously, is vast and elastic.  We might improve it with a rich schema, but until then, it is correct to tag park entries with this tag.

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

Parks, again

Doug Hembry
In reply to this post by stevea
Greetings everyone..

I have a stake in this discussion, being resident in CA and dealing
regularly with the representation of the various state and local parks,
Open Spaces, Ecological Reserves, water company lands, National Parks
and Forests, etc, etc, with which this state is blessed. It's a crazy
patchwork quilt of what are all, essentially, protected lands.

I'm broadly in agreement (I think) with Bradley White and other earlier
posters and less so with Steve. My take is that "parks" differ
essentially in their level of protection, and there is a whole spectrum
of protection levels. These levels are already well described by the
boundary=protected_area tag set. Protect_class encompasses a range from
legally designated wilderness down to local urban parks (plus
special-purpose areas). Protection_title=*, operator=*, and name=*
capture information about the responsible jurisdiction (you can throw in
"park_type" if you like, though it seems superfluous) and access=*
(along with mapped trails, etc) describes the area's availability for
public recreation. I don't think we need to embark on some big new
program to determine how to map California's parks - we already have the
means to do so. The boundary=protected_area might need some tweaking for
national or local peculiarities and some discussion about what protect
levels apply to what types of CA "parks", but it's already there and it
works and we should just use it.

Protect_class is not just some abstract value of interest only to
professional ecologists. The general "personality", and type of
recreation available in a given park - ie, whether you take your dog and
your kid in a stroller to picnic and play ball, or whether you carry
survival equipment, bear spray, a PLB and GPS, or something in between -
is strongly correlated  with level of protection. And given this, the
importance of the leisure=park/nature_reserve tags for understanding
"what kind of park is this?" is greatly decreased.

If I can throw in a note of cynicism: I have long suspected that there
is a lot of deliberate tagging for the renderer going on in this whole
business. I suspect the propensity for tagging anything with the word
"Park" in it's name as leisure=park (given the wiki definition,
seriously ?) stems from a belief by some mappers (no names) that the map
is improved by fill-coloring all protected lands a light shade of green
(It's gone so far that someone has been putting leisure=park on National
Forests in Humboldt County). This is a terrible idea - apart from being
totally counter to the wiki definition, the uniform green coloration of
"parks" at medium to high zooms is incompatible with describing land
cover characteristics with natural=* or landcover=*

IMHO, AT THE VERY LEAST, the background green fill for leisure=park
could and should be dropped by openstreeetmap-carto - it is unnecessary,
causes problems, and can be replaced by natural=* or landcover=* . This
would reduce one incentive for inappropriate use, and if still used
inappropriately, it wouldn't matter so much.

While on the topic of rendering "parks", I do agree with Steve (again,
if I'm understanding correctly) that  it would be valuable, if possible
at some point in the future - both for map clarity as well as providing
useful information to users - for carto to use different colors for
different types of boundaries. I differ with Steve in that IMO the
coloring should be based off protect_class (or at least for several
bands of protect_class if there are too many distinct values for
separate colors) rather than jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is less
meaningful to users than level of protection, and in any case is usually
obvious from the area name and other tags. Further, boundary rendering
should indicate access restrictions (access=yes/no/permit) by some means
- perhaps a dashed line as is presently done for highways.

Happy New Year to all!

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

Re: Parks, again

Mateusz Konieczny-2
On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 21:11:04 +0000
Doug Hembry <[hidden email]> wrote:

> IMHO, AT THE VERY LEAST, the background green fill for leisure=park
> could and should be dropped by openstreeetmap-carto - it is
> unnecessary, causes problems, and can be replaced by natural=* or
> landcover=* . This would reduce one incentive for inappropriate use,
> and if still used inappropriately, it wouldn't matter so much.

I am not sure. As I understand, problem is caused by tagging for
renderer - but national park borders are already displayed in this
style.

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

Re: Parks, again

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Doug Hembry
On 06/01/2018 21:11, Doug Hembry wrote:

(lots snipped, pretty much all of which I agree with)

> IMHO, AT THE VERY LEAST, the background green fill for leisure=park
> could and should be dropped by openstreeetmap-carto - it is unnecessary,
> causes problems, and can be replaced by natural=* or landcover=* . This
> would reduce one incentive for inappropriate use, and if still used
> inappropriately, it wouldn't matter so much.
There's a discussion that touches on this at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/603 - it was
initially proposed there to replace the rendering of
leisure=nature_reserve with rendering protected_area.

leisure=park and leisure=nature_reserve were both designed for specific
on-the-ground features, but there's been significant usage of both to
"turn areas green" in the OSM Carto map style.


> While on the topic of rendering "parks", I do agree with Steve (again,
> if I'm understanding correctly) that  it would be valuable, if possible
> at some point in the future - both for map clarity as well as providing
> useful information to users - for carto to use different colors for
> different types of boundaries. I differ with Steve in that IMO the
> coloring should be based off protect_class (or at least for several
> bands of protect_class if there are too many distinct values for
> separate colors) rather than jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is less
> meaningful to users than level of protection, and in any case is usually
> obvious from the area name and other tags. Further, boundary rendering
> should indicate access restrictions (access=yes/no/permit) by some means
> - perhaps a dashed line as is presently done for highways.

To be honest, I wouldn't "suggest that OSM Carto do X" here - there's
been a lot of discussion already and no conclusions there. What I'd
suggest instead is that someone knocks up a rendering of California
based on what it would look like if boundary=protected_area, or
protect_class, or whatever is used instead of park, nature_reserve
and/or national_park.  It's not that complicated to do that - there are
basic instructions for creating a tile server at
https://switch2osm.org/manually-building-a-tile-server-16-04-2-lts/ and
California is small enough in OSM terms to fit on a virtual machine on
an average desktop PC.

I did something similar for the UK - here
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/c342d0e42aeec0219777535a16e4c025a8886bf1/style.lua#L362 
is a simple example of "it it's tagged like X, make it render like Y",
and the result is the dashed lines around e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/144944672 on this map:
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=12&lat=53.3107&lon=-1.7177 
.  If anyone wants any help with that, please ask.  There's quite a lot
of useful information around already, bt it is spread out in different
places.

Best Regards,

Andy





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

Re: Parks, again

Doug Hembry
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-2
Hi Mateusz,
You are right that I raised the issue of the green fill for leisure=park
because it is being used for large, wild protected lands, where it
causes problems for "natural" and "landcover" tagging. If mappers only
used it for smallish, low-protection, usually urban parks, as the wiki
defines, it wouldn't be such a problem since these parks are usually
mainly grass anyway, and no-one bothers to define them in detail with
"natural=*" or "landcover=*".

So, yes, the problem arises in what I think is tagging for the renderer.
And yes, that means it's really not the renderer's problem. Agreed..

On the other hand, one could argue that since the natural=*, landcover=*
(and even landuse=*) tags exist, why should we be providing another,
special way of fill-coloring parks (even small urban parks)? It would be
more consistent to use the same set of landcover tags for ALL park-type
and protected areas. And it's really no big inconvenience for mappers to
add landuse=grass (or whatever) to their definition of a small urban
park. (Incidentally, the other leisure=* areas that are provided with a
fill-color (garden, playground, dog_park,..) are almost guaranteed to be
small, and a single color fill is no problem)

I'm not sure what you meant about the national_park borders... I'm
sorry. Could you clarify?

I stayed away from "boundary=national_park" and "leisure=nature_reserve"
topic so as not to muddy the water in my original note. But I think it's
true that there is also tagging for the renderer going on with these
tags too - to force boundary rendering for "boundary=protected_area"
which isn't there at present.

Briefly, my personal preference (for what it's worth), assuming
rendering is added at some point for "boundary=protected_area", would be
to drop rendering for "boundary=national_park" and
"leisure=nature_reserve" as well (as I'm suggesting for "leisure=park").
The "boundary=national_park" tag is redundant, given
"boundary=protected_area and protect_class=2 and
protection_title=national_park". IMHO, it could be deprecated. I don't
have an opinion on "leisure=nature_reserve". Maybe there's some value to
keeping it as part of the set of "leisure=*" values that describe
facilities for human recreation, but it doesn't need to explicitly render.

I should add that my comments are based only on experiences of my local
neck of the woods (CA State, and maybe the west coast of the US). I know
you have to consider requirements from all over..
Thanks for reading this far..


On 1/6/2018 7:58 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 21:11:04 +0000
> Doug Hembry <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> IMHO, AT THE VERY LEAST, the background green fill for leisure=park
>> could and should be dropped by openstreeetmap-carto - it is
>> unnecessary, causes problems, and can be replaced by natural=* or
>> landcover=* . This would reduce one incentive for inappropriate use,
>> and if still used inappropriately, it wouldn't matter so much.
> I am not sure. As I understand, problem is caused by tagging for
> renderer - but national park borders are already displayed in this
> style.
> .
>

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

Re: Parks, again

stevea
In reply to this post by stevea
There is a lot to unpack in this discussion.

First, OSM has the strong tenet that we should not code (data tag) for the renderer.  That is sound advice and largely serves us well, but it fails to directly address that there is no point to being an OSM volunteer unless there ARE renderers which display the results of our mapping (tagging).  Well, if you spend time in the more "coding" aspects of our project, you can glean the largely opaque (to most OSMers) processes and personalities of renderers and rendering, and maybe that is appropriate:  after all, they are the "back end."  Yes, this is where important decisions are made about what data in our map either are or are not shown.  (I'm talking about Carto, what might be called OSM's "front door" or "pretty face.")  Carto is, for better or worse (and it has gotten much better) what most mappers (and other OSM consumers, though not all) "see as OSM."  I know that's not strictly true, but let's say for purposes of this discussion about parks that it is.

Especially since having discovered OSM in 2009, I love cartography and mapping.  I also love parks, hiking, biking, nature and enjoying our public lands which are protected (at certain "levels") from further human development.  So, even as I got started mapping in OSM back then, accurately mapping parks (indeed, even positing ideas at how we might potentially improve how OSM maps parks, something I continue nine years later) became an important goal of mine in this project, reflected in my user page, mapping practices and passionate talk-us discussions.  I have followed many twists along the way, such as when leisure=nature_reserve is more correct than leisure=park, a lengthy debate (here) about landuse=forest (which I eventually cried "uncle" about, seeing that we were badly smearing the semantics of well-established wiki definitions, although they were and are ambiguous), striving to "do the right thing" with National Forests, National Parks, State Parks et al, important distinctions between landuse and landcover (still badly under-addressed in our project, as rendering distinctions between them remains muddy and has not fully emerged), the development of the protected_area (a good thing, but sorely lacking in helpfulness when it comes to being rendered — a difficult task, I realize) and other related topics.  It is quite complex, it is difficult to communicate about all the moving parts, let alone reach solid consensus, let alone render perfectly what we mean.

Tagging accurately, with well-designed and well-documented (in our wiki) schema are absolutely essential.  Rendering, at least at "some" level (a single renderer suffices, one, like Carto, which is also well-designed to carefully "map what is important and not map what is not important") isn't QUITE AS essential, but let's use the word "vital" or say "very important."  The full path from "volunteer entering data" to "seeing it blossom upon the map" is largely what drives the passion of OSM volunteers doing our good work.  So the choice of what to render (in Carto) is vital.  As we diligently enter map data, we are pulled forward by the sometimes-seemingly-contradictory desires of wanting to see beautiful renderings of our work as well as to rather precisely enter data, and not code for the renderer.  Threading that needle is not alway successful, and it is often thwarted, as I believe it is in this case (parks and related entities, what we might agree are "protected areas") by the distinct lack of these entities rendering well.  It is also complicated by the legacy of older/preceding tagging conventions.

We've done good work with developing the protected_area schema in our tagging syntax.  We haven't done good work rendering the full spectrum of what we mean by those.  Again, this is difficult.  Colors, confusion with landuse/landcover, ideas about dashing (whether jurisdiction, landcover, "use," or other — I'm open to all ideas) are valid topics to discuss.  Let's understand that there has been a medium-long arc of history (over a decade) in our project which must accommodate the way things were done two, five, ten years ago, as well as that we wish to move forward with more robust tagging schema AND better renderings of those schema.  In short, and it is widely known:  legacies can be challenging to grow beyond.

These are complex issues, we have been evolving them over years on top of doing things with more simplistic (legacy) methods, and so many issues must be accommodated in a "smart growth" (towards excellent tagging being supported by excellent rendering) methodology.  This forum may not be the best way to do that, as I feel I have typed too much for one missive already.  Please, let good discussion continue.  We are many people, with many good ideas, who wish to see the "right" and "best" things happen as our project grows and improves.  Once again, I believe us to be more in agreement than disagreement, and ask that many here who wish to make bold steps forward continue to do so, though we do well to consider our histories even as we leap ahead.  Coupling new tagging schemas with rendering is key.  But building the consensus that allows that "stack" or "workflow" to full fruition is difficult indeed.

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

Re: Parks, again

Kevin Kenny-4
In reply to this post by Doug Hembry
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Doug Hembry <[hidden email]> wrote:
Briefly, my personal preference (for what it's worth), assuming
rendering is added at some point for "boundary=protected_area", would be
to drop rendering for "boundary=national_park" and
"leisure=nature_reserve" as well (as I'm suggesting for "leisure=park").
The "boundary=national_park" tag is redundant, given
"boundary=protected_area and protect_class=2 and
protection_title=national_park". IMHO, it could be deprecated. I don't
have an opinion on "leisure=nature_reserve". Maybe there's some value to
keeping it as part of the set of "leisure=*" values that describe
facilities for human recreation, but it doesn't need to explicitly render.

I have 'leisure=nature_reserve' on a lot of things so that they
will render with the renderer that we have.  

I've been trying hard to make sure that they are
also tagged with 'boundary=protected_area protect_class=*
access=*' as well, so that when and if the renderer shifts
to protected areas, I'm good to go. 

While posting this,
I discovered that I've missed a few, but I need to do
research to figure out what protect_class they are.
That's one reason that I don't like requiring that
'protect_class' be the only driver. It's often not observable
on the ground. I can't tag it correctly until and unless
I've done some non-field investigation.

I've also done some limited landcover with a few areas
but I find it to be really slow going (getting it right involves
comparing summer and winter images, for instance).
In maps that I render, I ordinarily derive landcover
from non-OSM sources, so getting landcover for me
has a very low priority - I mostly map what I plan to
render. (Also called, "scratching your own itch.")

A fair number of 'national parks' are actually class 5 or 6, owing
to inholdings and private-public partnerships. They usually have
1b's and 2's embedded within them.



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

Re: Parks, again

Doug Hembry



On 1/7/2018 12:52 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Doug Hembry <[hidden email]> wrote:
Briefly, my personal preference (for what it's worth), assuming
rendering is added at some point for "boundary=protected_area", would be
to drop rendering for "boundary=national_park" and
"leisure=nature_reserve" as well (as I'm suggesting for "leisure=park").
The "boundary=national_park" tag is redundant, given
"boundary=protected_area and protect_class=2 and
protection_title=national_park". IMHO, it could be deprecated. I don't
have an opinion on "leisure=nature_reserve". Maybe there's some value to
keeping it as part of the set of "leisure=*" values that describe
facilities for human recreation, but it doesn't need to explicitly render.

I have 'leisure=nature_reserve' on a lot of things so that they
will render with the renderer that we have. 
+1 (or they use "boundary=national_park", then "boundary:type=protected_area" for the same reason)

I've been trying hard to make sure that they are
also tagged with 'boundary=protected_area protect_class=*
access=*' as well, so that when and if the renderer shifts
to protected areas, I'm good to go. 

While posting this,
I discovered that I've missed a few, but I need to do
research to figure out what protect_class they are.
That's one reason that I don't like requiring that
'protect_class' be the only driver. It's often not observable
on the ground. I can't tag it correctly until and unless
I've done some non-field investigation.

+1  It seems probable that some people using the boundary=protected area set will initially skip the protect_class=* tag, or defer providing it, although the table in the wiki is useful. It will likely get filled in eventually by someone, and in the meantime, if/when the renderer supports these tags, it will probably have to tolerate a missing protect_class tag, maybe by assuming a default value (?)I've also done some limited landcover with a few areas
but I find it to be really slow going (getting it right involves
comparing summer and winter images, for instance).
In maps that I render, I ordinarily derive landcover
from non-OSM sources, so getting landcover for me
has a very low priority - I mostly map what I plan to
render. (Also called, "scratching your own itch.")
We're lucky in sunny CA, in that it's pretty clear from imagery where are the edges of woods, scrub or grasslands, etc. Season doesn't seem to cause problems. But around here, landcover that people have imported in the past tends to grossly inaccurate.

A fair number of 'national parks' are actually class 5 or 6, owing
to inholdings and private-public partnerships. They usually have
1b's and 2's embedded within them.

OK.. hadn't noticed this, but my point was that the protect_title tag documents that this is
a National Park.


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

Re: Parks, again

Mateusz Konieczny-2
In reply to this post by Doug Hembry
For start: the best place to propose improvements to default map
style is to propose it at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto

In other places it is highly unusual that somebody involved in
development map style will notice it and on issue tracker
( https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues ) proposed
ideas stay under implementation or rejection so nothing is missed
(though somebody still need to implement it),


On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 19:58:54 +0000
Doug Hembry <[hidden email]> wrote:

> You are right that I raised the issue of the green fill for
> leisure=park because it is being used for large, wild protected
> lands

That is clearly incorrect tagging. But I guess that these people would
just switch to leisure=pitch or leisure=garden if
rendering for leisure=park would be removed.

> I'm not sure what you meant about the national_park borders... I'm
> sorry. Could you clarify?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=national%20park?uselang=en
is already rendered so I am curious why people still tag for renderer
and use leisure=park in places that are something completely diffferent.
Typically it stops when correct tagging is also displayed.

> And it's really no big inconvenience for mappers to
> add landuse=grass (or whatever) to their definition of a small urban
> park.

Note that in my experience (limited to Europe) it is very unusual for
entire park to have a single land cover (either grass or trees or
anything else) and it is vastly simpler to draw park area than many
landcover=* or landuse=* areas.


> On the other hand, one could argue that since the natural=*,
> landcover=* (and even landuse=*) tags exist, why should we be
> providing another, special way of fill-coloring parks (even small
> urban parks)?

Primarily - to display something useful also in areas that are not fully
mapped (what is quite rare).

> would be
> to drop rendering for "boundary=national_park" and
> "leisure=nature_reserve" as well

I would not expect it to happen soon. Especially as this tagging is not
terrible and is simpler than proposed new one and widely used.

Completely broken waterway=wadi tag still haunts us (see
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1365 ) for
links to gory details.

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

Re: Parks, again

Doug Hembry
Thanks for the advice, Mateusz. I'll think about this some more, and if
it still seems like a good idea I'll propose it on github. Andy Townsend
gave me the same advice.

Best regards

- doug


On 1/7/2018 4:06 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

> For start: the best place to propose improvements to default map
> style is to propose it at
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto
>
> In other places it is highly unusual that somebody involved in
> development map style will notice it and on issue tracker
> ( https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues ) proposed
> ideas stay under implementation or rejection so nothing is missed
> (though somebody still need to implement it),
>
>
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 19:58:54 +0000
> Doug Hembry <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> You are right that I raised the issue of the green fill for
>> leisure=park because it is being used for large, wild protected
>> lands
> That is clearly incorrect tagging. But I guess that these people would
> just switch to leisure=pitch or leisure=garden if
> rendering for leisure=park would be removed.
>
>> I'm not sure what you meant about the national_park borders... I'm
>> sorry. Could you clarify?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=national%20park?uselang=en
> is already rendered so I am curious why people still tag for renderer
> and use leisure=park in places that are something completely diffferent.
> Typically it stops when correct tagging is also displayed.
>
>> And it's really no big inconvenience for mappers to
>> add landuse=grass (or whatever) to their definition of a small urban
>> park.
> Note that in my experience (limited to Europe) it is very unusual for
> entire park to have a single land cover (either grass or trees or
> anything else) and it is vastly simpler to draw park area than many
> landcover=* or landuse=* areas.
>
>
>> On the other hand, one could argue that since the natural=*,
>> landcover=* (and even landuse=*) tags exist, why should we be
>> providing another, special way of fill-coloring parks (even small
>> urban parks)?
> Primarily - to display something useful also in areas that are not fully
> mapped (what is quite rare).
>
>> would be
>> to drop rendering for "boundary=national_park" and
>> "leisure=nature_reserve" as well
> I would not expect it to happen soon. Especially as this tagging is not
> terrible and is simpler than proposed new one and widely used.
>
> Completely broken waterway=wadi tag still haunts us (see
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1365 ) for
> links to gory details.
> .
>

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