Tagging of State Parks in the US

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

Tagging of State Parks in the US

Kevin Kenny-3
Summary: I propose that the unifying feature of the typical State Park
is its protection status, and propose that one tag combination that
ought to appear on its boundary is `boundary=protected_area
protect_class=21`. I solicit community feedback before trying to
stitch this idea into the Wiki or opening a ticket requesting that
OSM-Carto render these areas.

(I wrote a much longer diary entry about this at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/390260 that presents
some of the background and argues in much greater detail. I hope that
it could serve as the foundation of a Wiki description. I make a
briefer discussion below.)

Over the few years that I've contributed to OSM, I've seen several
quite acrimonious controversies erupt over the tagging of State Parks
in the US. The controversy seems to stem from the fact that although
State Parks are named and signed as unified wholes, a typical State
Park is multiple things according to the OSM data model and therefore
'ought' to be mapped as components: this part is a recreation ground,
this part is a nature reserve, this part is indeed a 'park' in the
sense of a sculpted landscape for visual enjoyment, and so on. There
is no place for the whole.

Likewise, 'boundary=national_park' has been controversial for State
Parks. While some 'quack like a duck', many more don't look like or
perform the same function as our National Parks. Moreover, some
mappers object to 'boundary=national_park' for any feature that
doesn't have National Park in its name, or any feature that is not
administered by the National Park Service.

Recently, it occurred to me that one aspect that does unify a State
Park is the idea of protection. A State Park is a protected_area. None
of the classes 1-6 fits it, because, generally speaking, it is not a
nature-protected area. Rather, it is a community-protected area. It
may be extensively developed with recreational facilities, but it is
protected against someone buying the land and strip-mining it or
building condos. In fact, on the Wiki page,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Social-protected-area
- I see class 21: 'community protected area', listing typical
protection objects as, religious, sacred areas, associative areas, and
recreation. We therefore already have appropriate tagging for this
type of protection! (Unfortunately, it doesn't yet render. That's
fixable, I presume.)

In fact, some time ago, I had gone through New York State facilities,
and tagged the recreational ones with exactly this combination. At the
time, it was not with the intention of floating a proposal such as
this, it was out of ignorance - I saw what appeared to be the
appropriate protection class on the Wiki, and used it. At the time, I
didn't check taginfo or Overpass, and so was entirely unaware that I
was virtually the only mapper to use the `protect_class=21` tag. New
York therefore could provide a test case.

Of course, we can continue to have a healthy discussion over
`landuse=*` and `leisure=*` for these areas, but I wonder if all the
parties can at least agree that tagging these features as protected
areas is correct and appropriate? If so, we can ask that the renderer
work off the protection status and at least have some common ground to
start from, allowing the features to appear on the map without dispute
even as the taxonomic arguments continue.

Given the amount of heat that has surrounded the tagging of State
Parks, I raise this idea with some trepidation, but ... what do other
mappers think? (For what it's worth, I've run the idea in private past
a few of the more strident voices, and while there has been the
expected quibbling over details, nobody seems to have a real objection
to the broad contours of the idea.)

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

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

Graeme Fitzpatrick
G'day Kevin

Personally, I can't see a problem with anything that you have suggested here.

Go for it!

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
Kevin,

For your New York State park examples, protect_class=21 might be the best option, so go ahead and add this tagging, in addition to tagging any specific areas within that qualify as a leisure=park or nature_reserve

But many State parks on the West Coast are similar to national parks, eg many State parks in Oregon, Washington and California are protected because they are areas of outstanding natural beauty. Silver Falls in Oregon is a good example

These types of State Parks can be tagged as boundary=protected_area with protect_class=2 or =3 or =5 depending,  or leisure=nature_reserve in many cases.

Joseph

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 6:40 AM Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
Summary: I propose that the unifying feature of the typical State Park
is its protection status, and propose that one tag combination that
ought to appear on its boundary is `boundary=protected_area
protect_class=21`. I solicit community feedback before trying to
stitch this idea into the Wiki or opening a ticket requesting that
OSM-Carto render these areas.

(I wrote a much longer diary entry about this at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/390260 that presents
some of the background and argues in much greater detail. I hope that
it could serve as the foundation of a Wiki description. I make a
briefer discussion below.)

Over the few years that I've contributed to OSM, I've seen several
quite acrimonious controversies erupt over the tagging of State Parks
in the US. The controversy seems to stem from the fact that although
State Parks are named and signed as unified wholes, a typical State
Park is multiple things according to the OSM data model and therefore
'ought' to be mapped as components: this part is a recreation ground,
this part is a nature reserve, this part is indeed a 'park' in the
sense of a sculpted landscape for visual enjoyment, and so on. There
is no place for the whole.

Likewise, 'boundary=national_park' has been controversial for State
Parks. While some 'quack like a duck', many more don't look like or
perform the same function as our National Parks. Moreover, some
mappers object to 'boundary=national_park' for any feature that
doesn't have National Park in its name, or any feature that is not
administered by the National Park Service.

Recently, it occurred to me that one aspect that does unify a State
Park is the idea of protection. A State Park is a protected_area. None
of the classes 1-6 fits it, because, generally speaking, it is not a
nature-protected area. Rather, it is a community-protected area. It
may be extensively developed with recreational facilities, but it is
protected against someone buying the land and strip-mining it or
building condos. In fact, on the Wiki page,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Social-protected-area
- I see class 21: 'community protected area', listing typical
protection objects as, religious, sacred areas, associative areas, and
recreation. We therefore already have appropriate tagging for this
type of protection! (Unfortunately, it doesn't yet render. That's
fixable, I presume.)

In fact, some time ago, I had gone through New York State facilities,
and tagged the recreational ones with exactly this combination. At the
time, it was not with the intention of floating a proposal such as
this, it was out of ignorance - I saw what appeared to be the
appropriate protection class on the Wiki, and used it. At the time, I
didn't check taginfo or Overpass, and so was entirely unaware that I
was virtually the only mapper to use the `protect_class=21` tag. New
York therefore could provide a test case.

Of course, we can continue to have a healthy discussion over
`landuse=*` and `leisure=*` for these areas, but I wonder if all the
parties can at least agree that tagging these features as protected
areas is correct and appropriate? If so, we can ask that the renderer
work off the protection status and at least have some common ground to
start from, allowing the features to appear on the map without dispute
even as the taxonomic arguments continue.

Given the amount of heat that has surrounded the tagging of State
Parks, I raise this idea with some trepidation, but ... what do other
mappers think? (For what it's worth, I've run the idea in private past
a few of the more strident voices, and while there has been the
expected quibbling over details, nobody seems to have a real objection
to the broad contours of the idea.)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

Kevin Kenny-3
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:10 AM Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> For your New York State park examples, protect_class=21 might be the best option, so go ahead and add this tagging, in addition to tagging any specific areas within that qualify as a leisure=park or nature_reserve
>
> But many State parks on the West Coast are similar to national parks, eg many State parks in Oregon, Washington and California are protected because they are areas of outstanding natural beauty. Silver Falls in Oregon is a good example

Of course.  "If it quacks like a duck..."

I've made elsewhere the case that the Adirondack and Catskill Parks in
New York deserve 'boundary=national_park' even though they are state
entities, using the same "it quacks like a duck" argument.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/390233  I suspect
strongly that the state parks that behave like 'national_park' are the
exception rather than the rule, but 'nature protected area'
protect_classes are entirely reasonable if that's the park's function.
I just don't very much like seeing baseball diamonds, swimming
beaches, or band shells inside leisure=nature_reserve. (Nobody does,
which is why the problem of 'what OTHER tagging can we use for these
things' has triggered so much controversy.)

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

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
We should discuss this at Github to get other ideas and opinions. In particular, please make a well-reasoned argument for why we need to supposed boundaries tagged on closed ways at #3785 - try to be concise and objective.

I think it may be difficult to get protect_class=21 rendered, unless the tag is more precisely defined. While you are using this tag specifically for recreation related protected areas, the current wiki page says that it can be used for 

Community life: religious, sacred areas, associative locations, recreation”

These should not be rendered in the same color as natural protected areas, and the difference between religious area and recreation is very large, so I think these would need different tagging and rendering differently.

3 options: 

1) make a proposal to redefine the meaning of protected class = 21 to mean recreation only, then we might be able to render it if others use the tag frequently

However, this would not match the IUCN classes that were originally used.

2) make a proposal for a new protect_class - maybe 28 - specifically for recreation areas, such as National Recreation areas and some State parks

This would make a clearly defined tag without changing the existing meaning of protect_class=21

3) create a new tag, eg 
a) boundary=recreation_area 
b) boundary=state_park

boundary=recreation_area or so something similar could be used for any protected area without requiring the use of multiple tags, and has the benefit of using plain English rather that a random number (I never can remember those), but it would be important to clarify the difference between this and leisure=recreation_ground and leisure=park.

boundary=state_park would be really easy to use for any state or provincial-level Park, and would work like boundary=national_park. Mappers could tag any State of Provincial park just based on the title. But you would still need to use other tags like protect_class to distinguish the type of protection, if that really matters. 

-Joseph

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 6:56 AM Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:10 AM Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> For your New York State park examples, protect_class=21 might be the best option, so go ahead and add this tagging, in addition to tagging any specific areas within that qualify as a leisure=park or nature_reserve
>
> But many State parks on the West Coast are similar to national parks, eg many State parks in Oregon, Washington and California are protected because they are areas of outstanding natural beauty. Silver Falls in Oregon is a good example
>
> These types of State Parks can be tagged as boundary=protected_area with protect_class=2 or =3 or =5 depending,  or leisure=nature_reserve in many cases.

[Off list]

As I said in public, you're right that if a different protect_class is
appropriate, you should use it. But I've yet to be in a place that
doesn't have at least some mixed-use State Parks of the type that I
describe, so we need tagging for them. (I've lived in multiple states,
on both coasts and in fly-over country.)

Thanks for the work on making such objects render, particularly in
pushing for https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3785.
If it adds any grist to the mill, note that there are nearly three
thousand closed ways in North America that are protected areas or
national parks and do not wind up in the 'polygon' table. Query that
identified them is at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3819#issuecomment-509865506.
The Wiki may be wrong (according to Paul) but the tagging is very well
established - and fewer than 20% of those protected areas came from my
imports. (OK, I'm an early adopter of protected_area).

This also raises the issue of getting the protect_class=21 to render.
A rendering similar to nature_reserve would seem to be appropriate,
with the inside highlight colour the paler shade that is used for
leisure=park.  (I've also been using protect_class=22 for 'State
Historic Site' but I'm open to other suggestions on that one!)

In addition to 21 and 22, I've used protect_class=12 extensively for
'Watershed Recreation Land' - which are basically tracts of forest
that a government has purchased so that they will not be developed, in
order to protect the water quality downhill or downstream from them.
New York City supports a lot of these - they are outside New York City
but protect its water supply, which comes in by an extensive system of
aqueducts. (As far as their legal status goes, New York City is simply
a government functioning as a private landowner, and the laws of the
county where the parcel is located govern.) I've also similarly used
protect_class=15 for "State Flood Control Area" - state-owned land
that's kept off the market because it's subject to sporadic
inundation, but is often open to public recreation, especially
hunting, when not flooded. I'm less eager about getting rendering for
12 and 15 since they're all tagged 'leisure=nature_reserve' in
addition, and that's not even too inaccurate.

So, what do you think? Do I have a chance of seeing 21 and 22
rendered? It doesn't look insanely difficult, once the database is
rebuilt with the osm2pgsql change - but I've seen how much political
resistance there is, and I confess that I don't understand why there
seems to be considerable resistance entirely outside the technical
difficulties.

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

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

Paul Johnson-3
I'm on board with a state park specific tag.  I find protect class to be a clunky answer and not entirely humanly intuitive compared to something like leisure=state_park


On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
We should discuss this at Github to get other ideas and opinions. In particular, please make a well-reasoned argument for why we need to supposed boundaries tagged on closed ways at #3785 - try to be concise and objective.

I think it may be difficult to get protect_class=21 rendered, unless the tag is more precisely defined. While you are using this tag specifically for recreation related protected areas, the current wiki page says that it can be used for 

Community life: religious, sacred areas, associative locations, recreation”

These should not be rendered in the same color as natural protected areas, and the difference between religious area and recreation is very large, so I think these would need different tagging and rendering differently.

3 options: 

1) make a proposal to redefine the meaning of protected class = 21 to mean recreation only, then we might be able to render it if others use the tag frequently

However, this would not match the IUCN classes that were originally used.

2) make a proposal for a new protect_class - maybe 28 - specifically for recreation areas, such as National Recreation areas and some State parks

This would make a clearly defined tag without changing the existing meaning of protect_class=21

3) create a new tag, eg 
a) boundary=recreation_area 
b) boundary=state_park

boundary=recreation_area or so something similar could be used for any protected area without requiring the use of multiple tags, and has the benefit of using plain English rather that a random number (I never can remember those), but it would be important to clarify the difference between this and leisure=recreation_ground and leisure=park.

boundary=state_park would be really easy to use for any state or provincial-level Park, and would work like boundary=national_park. Mappers could tag any State of Provincial park just based on the title. But you would still need to use other tags like protect_class to distinguish the type of protection, if that really matters. 

-Joseph

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 6:56 AM Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:10 AM Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> For your New York State park examples, protect_class=21 might be the best option, so go ahead and add this tagging, in addition to tagging any specific areas within that qualify as a leisure=park or nature_reserve
>
> But many State parks on the West Coast are similar to national parks, eg many State parks in Oregon, Washington and California are protected because they are areas of outstanding natural beauty. Silver Falls in Oregon is a good example
>
> These types of State Parks can be tagged as boundary=protected_area with protect_class=2 or =3 or =5 depending,  or leisure=nature_reserve in many cases.

[Off list]

As I said in public, you're right that if a different protect_class is
appropriate, you should use it. But I've yet to be in a place that
doesn't have at least some mixed-use State Parks of the type that I
describe, so we need tagging for them. (I've lived in multiple states,
on both coasts and in fly-over country.)

Thanks for the work on making such objects render, particularly in
pushing for https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3785.
If it adds any grist to the mill, note that there are nearly three
thousand closed ways in North America that are protected areas or
national parks and do not wind up in the 'polygon' table. Query that
identified them is at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3819#issuecomment-509865506.
The Wiki may be wrong (according to Paul) but the tagging is very well
established - and fewer than 20% of those protected areas came from my
imports. (OK, I'm an early adopter of protected_area).

This also raises the issue of getting the protect_class=21 to render.
A rendering similar to nature_reserve would seem to be appropriate,
with the inside highlight colour the paler shade that is used for
leisure=park.  (I've also been using protect_class=22 for 'State
Historic Site' but I'm open to other suggestions on that one!)

In addition to 21 and 22, I've used protect_class=12 extensively for
'Watershed Recreation Land' - which are basically tracts of forest
that a government has purchased so that they will not be developed, in
order to protect the water quality downhill or downstream from them.
New York City supports a lot of these - they are outside New York City
but protect its water supply, which comes in by an extensive system of
aqueducts. (As far as their legal status goes, New York City is simply
a government functioning as a private landowner, and the laws of the
county where the parcel is located govern.) I've also similarly used
protect_class=15 for "State Flood Control Area" - state-owned land
that's kept off the market because it's subject to sporadic
inundation, but is often open to public recreation, especially
hunting, when not flooded. I'm less eager about getting rendering for
12 and 15 since they're all tagged 'leisure=nature_reserve' in
addition, and that's not even too inaccurate.

So, what do you think? Do I have a chance of seeing 21 and 22
rendered? It doesn't look insanely difficult, once the database is
rebuilt with the osm2pgsql change - but I've seen how much political
resistance there is, and I confess that I don't understand why there
seems to be considerable resistance entirely outside the technical
difficulties.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 8:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> We should discuss this at Github to get other ideas and opinions. In particular, please make a well-reasoned argument for why we need to supposed boundaries tagged on closed ways at #3785 - try to be concise and objective.

I'll work on that one. The best argument is already presented - that
it's well-established tagging, recommended on the national_park,
aboriginal_lands, and protected_area Wiki pages, and that there are
about 3,000 closed ways in North America that are tagged with
national_park, aboriginal_lands, or protected_area and not loaded in
the polygon table and hence unrenderable in this scheme. If that
argument alone cannot carry the day, then I despair of my ability to
construct one that will convince the decision makers.

> I think it may be difficult to get protect_class=21 rendered, unless the tag is more precisely defined. While you are using this tag specifically for recreation related protected areas, the current wiki page says that it can be used for
>
> “Community life: religious, sacred areas, associative locations, recreation”
>
> These should not be rendered in the same color as natural protected areas, and the difference between religious area and recreation is very large, so I think these would need different tagging and rendering differently.

Clearly, you are right that nature-protected areas and recreational
areas should not render alike - in fact, an inner highlight in a color
more like 'leisure=park' or 'landuse=recreation_ground' would be more
appropriate for recreation areas.

The argument that religious and sacred areas, and associative areas
(I've never been able to get an explanation of what these are supposed
to be!) should not render the same way has some merit. However, at
present there is exactly one religious-protected area tagged - a
church in Ukraine that would probably be better marked
landuse=religious. (Unless it's some sort of historic site - I'm
clearly not familiar with the locality!)

> 3 options:
>
> 1) make a proposal to redefine the meaning of protected class = 21 to mean recreation only, then we might be able to render it if others use the tag frequently
>
> However, this would not match the IUCN classes that were originally used.

That actually might work.  IUCN defines only classes 1a - 6.  All
others are an OSM invention, and virtually unused.

> 2) make a proposal for a new protect_class - maybe 28 - specifically for recreation areas, such as National Recreation areas and some State parks
>
> This would make a clearly defined tag without changing the existing meaning of protect_class=21

I can count on my fingers the protect_class=21 objects that are in OSM
and do not designate recreation areas. There's very little existing
meaning there. I seem actually to have been the only one to notice
that the class was available and use it extensively. (Shame on me for
not consulting taginfo, but on the other hand, every other tag that
I'd tried on these features got me a scolding from someone!)

> 3) create a new tag, eg
> a) boundary=recreation_area
> b) boundary=state_park
>
> boundary=recreation_area or so something similar could be used for any protected area without requiring the use of multiple tags, and has the benefit of using plain English rather that a random number (I never can remember those), but it would be important to clarify the difference between this and leisure=recreation_ground and leisure=park.

The problem here is that the typical State Park is multiple things:
it's got some recreation_ground and some nature_reserve and some park
and maybe also camp_site and possibly amenities like museums, inns,
concessions ...  It's a mixed land use, united only by its name and
protection. That, at the root, is what has caused so much controversy
- there are too many people who insist that any tag that describes a
land use must describe a single thing, leaving nothing to tag the
State Park boundary and its name. (Tagging the different land uses
within the park fragments it, and the name of the whole has nothing to
attach to.) We also have plenty of things that aren't state parks, run
by local governments and NGO's, that also have a similar structure, so
'state_park' wouldn't be a good choice for the name. But because of
the fact that 'protected for the value to the community of
recreational land' is a common attribute for all of it, the
protected_area tagging seemed like something that most could accept.

I'm trying to use protected_area to head off into a new direction, and
in fact the protect_class=21 is such a green field (pardon the pun)
that it looked promising. It's got the distinct advantage that it's
not a falsehood - these are areas, protected in perpetuity, for
recreational use.

Another problem with drawing a distinction between nature_reserve,
recreation_ground, and park (and throw national_park into the mix for
good measure!) is that I've already seen far too many heated arguments
among mappers on Wiki talk pages, Github threads, mailing lists, and
so on about what the boundaries of those tags are.  Adding more words
to the definitions DOES NOT HELP, because we are dealing mostly with
the fact that trying to explain the concept of 'State Park' in UK
English, particularly to a non-native speaker who lives in a locale
that doesn't have any facilities remotely like that, is like trying to
explain the concept of 'smoke' to a fish. 'Public-access land
protected in perpetuity by a state-level government for recreational
use' seemed to be the broadest possible common attribute that could be
explained.  GIven the heat of the arguments, I don't think that the
difference among those other land use types *can* be clarified.

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

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by Paul Johnson-3
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 9:36 PM Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm on board with a state park specific tag.  I find protect class to be a clunky answer and not entirely humanly intuitive compared to something like leisure=state_park

The non-intuitiveness may prove to be a hidden advantage. At least
there's very little existing tagging (other than the fiction of
calling state parks boundary=national_park) that the usage would
break. It defuses a lot of, "but I can't retag all the existing ones
in my state!" (which are tagged differently from every other state,
but all the others are WRONG!)

It's a compromise that absolutely nobody is going to be happy with.
But in about five years of trying to work with these things, I don't
think I've seen an idea for how to tag them that has had any prayer of
getting a majority.

It's also rather a different concept. Rather than, "this is a state
park", it's "this is public-access land that a government has
protected in perpetuity for recreational purposes" - which is a fact
that can be established in the promulgation of the boundary and the
law that established it. It also avoids the word, 'park', which in OSM
is a term of art that does not encompass anything close to the entire
spectrum of land uses that the word in common parlance conveys to
virtually all US English speakers and many English speakers in the
Commonwealth.

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

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

Joseph Eisenberg
I didn’t realize that all of the protect_class>6 values were invented for osm. In that case, I see no reason to use any values for protect_class above 7. 

None of the higher values is used very frequently, and it’s impossible for me to remember which each one means, especially the values from 21 to 27.

I think it would be easier for everyone if we created new tags for specific things like protected recreation areas, protected historic or cultural sites and protected sacred sites, as has been done with boundary=aboriginal_lands

Joseph

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 2:42 PM Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 9:36 PM Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm on board with a state park specific tag.  I find protect class to be a clunky answer and not entirely humanly intuitive compared to something like leisure=state_park

The non-intuitiveness may prove to be a hidden advantage. At least
there's very little existing tagging (other than the fiction of
calling state parks boundary=national_park) that the usage would
break. It defuses a lot of, "but I can't retag all the existing ones
in my state!" (which are tagged differently from every other state,
but all the others are WRONG!)

It's a compromise that absolutely nobody is going to be happy with.
But in about five years of trying to work with these things, I don't
think I've seen an idea for how to tag them that has had any prayer of
getting a majority.

It's also rather a different concept. Rather than, "this is a state
park", it's "this is public-access land that a government has
protected in perpetuity for recreational purposes" - which is a fact
that can be established in the promulgation of the boundary and the
law that established it. It also avoids the word, 'park', which in OSM
is a term of art that does not encompass anything close to the entire
spectrum of land uses that the word in common parlance conveys to
virtually all US English speakers and many English speakers in the
Commonwealth.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 28. Jul 2019, at 07:51, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I didn’t realize that all of the protect_class>6 values were invented for osm. In that case, I see no reason to use any values for protect_class above 7.
>
> None of the higher values is used very frequently, and it’s impossible for me to remember which each one means, especially the values from 21 to 27.
>
> I think it would be easier for everyone if we created new tags for specific things like protected recreation areas, protected historic or cultural sites and protected sacred sites, as has been done with boundary=aboriginal_lands


+1, number codes are not a good solution if human mappers should assign them, even less if they aren’t about a gradation (like tracktype) and if there are a lot of them (harder to remember, like protected area types).

The fact the scheme wasn’t completed in all those years since 2011 doesn’t make it more appealing.
While being presented on a long page with lots of information (hence appearing to be exhaustive), if you actually want to classify an area it frequently happens that the definitions are not sufficient for describing the kind of protection and distinguishing it from other similar protected areas

Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Paul Johnson-3
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 02:36, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm on board with a state park specific tag.  I find protect class to be a clunky answer and not entirely humanly intuitive compared to something like leisure=state_park

+1

I have no objections to protect_class as supplemental information that data consumers can make
use of as they wish (including ignoring it).  I have an intense dislike of numbers being used for
anything other than numeric values because they are not amenable to human inspection.  Sure,
editors can unobfuscate things by using an internal lookup table, but that isn't a complete solution.
Compare an overpass-turbo query for leisure=state_park and for protect_class=21.  Use the query
tool of standard carto and ask yourself how easy it would be to guess what is meant by
leisure=state_park versus protect_class=21.  Look at the raw tags in the editor (something I
frequently do, for one reason or another) and see if leisure=state_park makes more or less
sense than protect_class=21.

But if we insist that protect_class=21 is a sensible solution, then so is replacing all existing
top=level tags with things like object=Q1234 and object=Q9876.  Well, that doesn't cope with
values, so we'd have to replace building=house with object=Q1234 + Q1234=Q9876.
Obviously (I hope) this is not a sensible solution, but it is merely a logical extension of
the thinking that gives us protect_class=21 as a top-level tag.

--
Paul


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

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

On 28. Jul 2019, at 14:03, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have an intense dislike of numbers being used for
anything other than numeric values because they are not amenable to human inspection.  Sure,
editors can unobfuscate things by using an internal lookup table, but that isn't a complete solution.
Compare an overpass-turbo query for leisure=state_park and for protect_class=21.  Use the query
tool of standard carto and ask yourself how easy it would be to guess what is meant by
leisure=state_park versus protect_class=21. 


we do have an established numbered scheme for admin_levels, it could be reused to tag the administrative level that instituted the protected area, for a state park it would have the value 4, the key could remain “admin_level” also in the context of boundary=protected_area

It seems straightforward.

The kind of protection could be readable words, like nature, or birds, or culture, or water, air etc. (we’ll see what is needed when we do it). Don’t know for the key, it seems reasonable not to reuse protect_class. Maybe 
“protected:for”
or the no underscore/colon variant:
“protection” and the goods/qualities that are protected as value.

For specific kind of sites (e.g. protected under a specific international treaty) we could have specific tags to identify them if desired, e.g. protection_context=natura2000
or
protection_context=state_park
(not sure the latter would be adding information if there was already an admin_level=4 tag)

or from current (modest) usage, it could be “related_law” https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=natura2000#values

Cheers Martin 



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

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 8:04 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have no objections to protect_class as supplemental information that data consumers can make
> use of as they wish (including ignoring it).  I have an intense dislike of numbers being used for
> anything other than numeric values because they are not amenable to human inspection.  Sure,
> editors can unobfuscate things by using an internal lookup table, but that isn't a complete solution.
> Compare an overpass-turbo query for leisure=state_park and for protect_class=21.

I dislike the numeric classification as well.

I dislike 'leisure=state_park' for two reasons.

First, it preëmpts the 'leisure' tag. It turns out that there are
State Parks that are also something else in the 'leisure=*' space. A
handful in New York are tagged 'leisure=golf_course' and should retain
that tagging, but it would be good to have tagging that indicates the
protection status. Bethpage State Park wouldn't be turned into condos
just because some future administration decides that the state's money
ought to subsidize something other than golf - it would be repurposed
to some other recreational use. (The legality of releasing it from
protection would be a complex political question; repurposing it from
one recreation to another could be an administrative decision by the
executive branch.)

Second, it pushes the problem down one level. Near me, there are
'County Parks' that are functionally pretty much the same as State
Parks, and even 'County Forests', 'County Nature Preserves', 'County
Wildlife Sanctuaries', and so on... and moreover, even some similar
objects at the town level. What is significant is the protection, not
the level of government that establishes it, so having 'state' in the
name is simply a recipe for more confusion. We already struggle with
that issue every time that the national_park tag comes up, because
'national park' to IUCN describes a purpose and level of protection,
not a particular ownership. In fact, IUCN's guidelines have a
cross-cutting taxonomy of management that divides it into four
categories: government (including national, sub-national and delegated
entities  - the last refers to formal delegation to an NGO); shared
(collaborative; joint; transboundary); private (individual; nonprofit
- NGO, university, cooperative; for-profit); indigenous (declared and
run by the local indigenous community). Any of these can apply to any
of the types; hence, in areas that I try to curate, there are some
relatively surprising combinations. The Adirondack Park is a
non-Federal 'national_park' with shared (collaborative) management
between the state of New York and private landowners; the New York
City watershed is a set of sustainable-resource-use protected areas
with private management (It's outside the city's boundaries. New York
City is not its government, merely its landowner functioning in the
capacity of a private entity); the Huyck Preserve is a habitat area
with autonomous NGO management; and so on. It's really important NOT
to think of the problem as being 'the wrong level of government.' Even
my for-profit employer is in the game. There are a couple of
recreation grounds near my work site that are owned by the company but
used by the town under a permanent easement. They exist in part
because there is a required setback of 500 m (I may be wrong about the
figure) between certain hazardous activities at my workplace and
permanent human habitation, but I'm sure that the company is also glad
to get the tax writeoff and have its name on the sign as the donor.

The 'boundary=recreational_area' idea would work for me if people were
actually to get behind it.  We would, of course, have to address 3785
somehow - and deal with the fact that means a database reload. Just as
'protect_class=24' is now dead (replaced with aboriginal_lands), we
could migrate the other protections over to a named scheme.

In fact, that would work with the IUCN codes as well - we don't have
to use them unchanged, we can name them!  (Of course, we could
preserve a correspondence between IUCN's taxonomy and ours, and
continue to accept the IUCN codes as synonyms.) In fact, IUCN gives
names to the categories in
https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-area-categories
- although we OSM'ers would probably go with something a trifle less
verbose, such as 'strict_nature_reserve', 'wilderness_area',
'national_park' (already used), 'natural_monument', 'habitat',
'protected_landscape', 'sustainable_resource_use_area'.

I drafted the protected_area idea a short while before I learnt of the
issue with the database, and learning of the issue has already made me
less sanguine.  The only thing that kept the idea alive for me was
that 'area=yes' is available as a workaround, and that most areas
tagged with 'boundary=protected_area' also have other tagging that
does force a polygon to be created, although there appear to be
thousands that do not.

So, I'd like to emphasize:

  * The tagging should address protection status and purpose, not what
level of government (or private agency, or indigenous community)
manages it.
  * The purpose should be of a sufficiently general nature (e.g.
'recreation') that a typical state park can be preserved as a single
named entity.
  * If the new tag requires a database reload to become a polygon,
then it should not conflict with the existing tagging on typical state
parks. If the scheme punishes mappers by failing to render correctly
tagged features while rendering incorrectly tagged ones, it will not
take off.

The reason for the third bullet is that I understand that a database
reload incurs a massive disruption to operations and can be done only
for extraordinary reasons. The initial support for 'protected_area'
waited several years - during which time, mappers were directed that
there was no other correct tagging for objects such as US National
Forests (large portions of which are not forested, and which are not
strict nature reserves, and which are not National Parks), forcing
them to decide between tagging for the renderer and waiting years for
their objects actually to appear on the map. Small wonder that these
issues have become so contentious - the perception is that one part of
the community says to another, "your feature does not deserve to be
rendered!"

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

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 15:36, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

we do have an established numbered scheme for admin_levels, it could be reused to tag the administrative level that instituted the protected area, for a state park it would have the value 4, the key could remain “admin_level” also in the context of boundary=protected_area

I'm not entirely happy with admin_level.  It's numbers, so you have to read the wiki to figure out
what admin_level=4 is.  I view it as a historical accident that we should avoid repeating, not a
template for good taq design.

The kind of protection could be readable words, like nature, or birds, or culture, or water, air etc.

A lot better than numbers.  Still has problems, such as some objects will need to have a list
of values because it serves multiple purposes, but better than randomly-assigned numbers.
 
--
Paul


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

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

Joseph Eisenberg
While admin_level is numeric, they numbers are already widely known,
so it would be fine to reuse the tag admin_level=4 to specify the
administrative level of a certain protected area, I think, especially
if the operator=* is not the same.

> 'strict_nature_reserve', 'wilderness_area',
'national_park' (already used), 'natural_monument', 'habitat',
'protected_landscape', 'sustainable_resource_use_area

Great idea. I can actually remember those. Perhaps we can create
specific wiki pages for each of the protect_class=1 to 6 and add those
definitions, to help out taginfo and editors like iD and JOSM. I would
also probably vote for a proposal that added new tags like
*=wilderness_area, *=natural_monument, and deprecated protect_class.

There will need to be synonyms for 11 to 19 as well, since these are
used in some countries according to the table, as well as for at least
a few of the Social/Cultural ones.

Are you feeling up to writing a big proposal, Kevin? It may be a lot a
work and probably requires consulting with other communities (like
German at least), but I think you have the persistence to get it done.

Joseph

On 7/29/19, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 15:36, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> we do have an established numbered scheme for admin_levels, it could be
>> reused to tag the administrative level that instituted the protected
>> area,
>> for a state park it would have the value 4, the key could remain
>> “admin_level” also in the context of boundary=protected_area
>>
>
> I'm not entirely happy with admin_level.  It's numbers, so you have to read
> the wiki to figure out
> what admin_level=4 is.  I view it as a historical accident that we should
> avoid repeating, not a
> template for good taq design.
>
> The kind of protection could be readable words, like nature, or birds, or
>> culture, or water, air etc.
>>
>
> A lot better than numbers.  Still has problems, such as some objects will
> need to have a list
> of values because it serves multiple purposes, but better than
> randomly-assigned numbers.
>
> --
> Paul
>

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

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 15:42, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:

I dislike the numeric classification as well.

That's good.  We agree on something. :)

I dislike 'leisure=state_park' for two reasons.

First, it preëmpts the 'leisure' tag. It turns out that there are
State Parks that are also something else in the 'leisure=*' space. A
handful in New York are tagged 'leisure=golf_course' and should retain
that tagging, but it would be good to have tagging that indicates the
protection status.

Looks like we also agree there.  I have no problem with something tagged as
leisure=golf_course also having a protection status.  It's analagous to a highway
of a particular type having an access tag.  Where I disagree is with the people who
think that leisure=golf_course should, where it is protected, be replace by
protected_class=n.

Second, it pushes the problem down one level. Near me, there are
'County Parks' that are functionally pretty much the same as State
Parks, and even 'County Forests', 'County Nature Preserves', 'County
Wildlife Sanctuaries', and so on... and moreover, even some similar
objects at the town level. What is significant is the protection, not
the level of government that establishes it, so having 'state' in the
name is simply a recipe for more confusion.

Ummmmm, what do you mean by "having state in the name"?  If you mean the
tag name, I agree.  State parks and county parks are still parks.  To some degree
the operator tag is adequate to distinguish them.  But having "State" or "County" in
name=* is perfectly fine.

The 'boundary=recreational_area' idea would work for me if people were
actually to get behind it.

Something along those lines might work.  In the UK boundary is how we handle national
parks that encompass a lot of things (such as towns) your country might not consider to
be a park: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/165598 - it's not all "nature" or "recreation"
but there are extra legal restrictions on activities such as building a housing estate that don't
apply outside of the park.
 
In fact, that would work with the IUCN codes as well - we don't have
to use them unchanged, we can name them!

Not only could but should.  There is a computer programming language I hold in contempt
but I grudgingly admit that its introduction of enumerated types was a good idea.  We should
avoid magic numbers.

I drafted the protected_area idea a short while before I learnt of the
issue with the database, and learning of the issue has already made me
less sanguine.

Yeah, that kyboshes a lot of ideas.  It also requires that editors know to treat it as an
area object (but that's a lot less hassle to fix).
 
The only thing that kept the idea alive for me was
that 'area=yes' is available as a workaround,

Indeed.  One might consider that tagging for the renderer, but I'd say that using a valid tag
in a valid way isn't wrong, it's lying for the renderer that is wrong.  At worst, adding area=yes
is superfluous if everything (renderers, editors, etc.) already treat that object as an area.


So, I'd like to emphasize:

  * The tagging should address protection status and purpose, not what
level of government (or private agency, or indigenous community)
manages it.

Seems reasonable.  Another tag could be introduced if it were ever necessary to
state the level of organization that manages it.

  * The purpose should be of a sufficiently general nature (e.g.
'recreation') that a typical state park can be preserved as a single
named entity.

Ummm, see Pembrokeshire Coast National Park I gave a link for above.  It has towns and
cities in it.  I doubt you could generalize that sufficiently well.

  * If the new tag requires a database reload to become a polygon,
then it should not conflict with the existing tagging on typical state
parks. If the scheme punishes mappers by failing to render correctly
tagged features while rendering incorrectly tagged ones, it will not
take off.

Not really controversial.  If it breaks things, it won't be used.

The reason for the third bullet is that I understand that a database
reload incurs a massive disruption to operations and can be done only
for extraordinary reasons.

Yeah, that's a problem.  But that's what area=yes is for.  It may not be what it was intended
to be for, some might consider it a misuse or abuse of tagging, but it works like a duck.
 
--
Paul


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

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg


sent from a phone

> On 28. Jul 2019, at 17:34, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> While admin_level is numeric, they numbers are already widely known,
> so it would be fine to reuse the tag admin_level=4 to specify the
> administrative level of a certain protected area, I think, especially
> if the operator=* is not the same.


yes, they are widely known and there are reasons why a number might be better than words in this specific case: you can directly see the hierarchy even if you don’t understand the words that are used for naming it (indeed countries are using different systems and names for their subdivisions). It may also seem to imply some kind of correspondence between the same level in different countries, but this is very loose because the systems can be very different.

Great we’re moving away from numbered protect classes.


Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 10:36 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> we do have an established numbered scheme for admin_levels, it could be reused to tag the administrative level that instituted the protected area, for a state park it would have the value 4, the key could remain “admin_level” also in the context of boundary=protected_area
>
> It seems straightforward.

Far from straightforward! It's perfectly straightforward to describe
the admin_level that runs a park. But admin_level is in no way the
source of the tagging puzzle.

The protected_area tagging, if we are to follow IUCN guidelines, does
not depend on the level of government. Under IUCN definitions, a
'national park' does NOT have to be administered by a sovereign
nation. It has to ''quack like a duck" - be a "large natural or
near-natural areas protecting large-scale ecological processes with
characteristic species and ecosystems, which also have environmentally
and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational,
recreational and visitor opportunities".

In fact, I'd like to avoid even recommending 'admin_level' in favour
of 'operator' and 'site_ownership', both of which are already
frequently used. It avoids confusion in a weird case like the New York
City watershed recreation units. The weirdness comes from the fact
that the units lie *outside* New York City, and New York City isn't
their governing entity. It simply owns them as a private party would -
having purchased the land from a willing seller in order to keep it
from development. It then allows public access, just as some generous
private parties (notably, the land trusts) do. What level of
government administers them? None of the answers make sense, but
operator="New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau
of Water Supply" makes perfect sense.  There really isn't much of a
case for admin_level here. (I don't *mind* it in cases where it's more
meaningful, but don't go out of my way to tag it, because it doesn't
really inform anything.)

> The kind of protection could be readable words, like nature, or birds, or culture, or water, air etc. (we’ll see what is needed when we do it). Don’t know for the key, it seems reasonable not to reuse protect_class. Maybe
> “protected:for”
> or the no underscore/colon variant:
> “protection” and the goods/qualities that are protected as value.

Already there - the 'protection_object' tag. (I use it pretty
consistently for class 3/4/5/6 areas; 1, 1a and 2, it becomes
meaningless, because the protection object tends to be 'everything
under the Sun'). It'd be a challenge for rendering because there are
so many things that might be protected.

> For specific kind of sites (e.g. protected under a specific international treaty) we could have specific tags to identify them if desired, e.g. protection_context=natura2000
> or
> protection_context=state_park
> (not sure the latter would be adding information if there was already an admin_level=4 tag)

Already there - the 'protection_title' tag; plus, as you note,
'related_law'.It's pretty useless for rendering, though; there are too
many administrative jurisdictions with too many detailed differences
in their local laws.

But this doesn't really address the problem. We can't fix State Parks
by making them 'boundary=national_park admin_level=4' because they
don't function as 'national park' in the IUCN deffinition of the term.
Instead, the typical State Park is a hybrid of nature_reserve and
recreation_ground and park and maybe a few other things. Requiring
that those land uses be mapped separately leaves no whole to which the
name and boundary can be assigned, but the whole doesn't really have
anything binding it together other than a protection status, a
coterminous set of boundaries and a name.

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

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:38 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 15:42, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Second, it pushes the problem down one level. Near me, there are
>> 'County Parks' that are functionally pretty much the same as State
>> Parks, and even 'County Forests', 'County Nature Preserves', 'County
>> Wildlife Sanctuaries', and so on... and moreover, even some similar
>> objects at the town level. What is significant is the protection, not
>> the level of government that establishes it, so having 'state' in the
>> name is simply a recipe for more confusion.
>
>
> Ummmmm, what do you mean by "having state in the name"?  If you mean the
> tag name, I agree.  State parks and county parks are still parks.  To some degree
> the operator tag is adequate to distinguish them.  But having "State" or "County" in
> name=* is perfectly fine.

Sorry, I spoke sloppily. Having the word 'state' in the tag defining
the type of object is a recipe for confusion, just as IUCN's using
'national park' as a term of art and protection type rather than
specifically meaning a formal declaration that a given object is a
National Park has caused us tremendous amounts of confusion over the
years. That alone makes 'leisure=state_park' a non-starter by
comparison to some sort of 'boundary=*' or an entirely new key. There
are other facilities that are functionally identical that aren't
'state parks', and using that tag to describe them will cause
arguments for years.

>> The 'boundary=recreational_area' idea would work for me if people were
>> actually to get behind it.
>
> Something along those lines might work.  In the UK boundary is how we handle national
> parks that encompass a lot of things (such as towns) your country might not consider to
> be a park: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/165598 - it's not all "nature" or "recreation"
> but there are extra legal restrictions on activities such as building a housing estate that don't
> apply outside of the park.

Our National Parks often have substantial inholdings as well. We're
not as different as you imagine. Also, as I describe in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/390233, I've used
'boundary=national_park' on a couple of carefully selected objects
that are not National Parks, and in fact, are not even Federal.
Richard Fairhurst tells me that he's comfortable with my choice of
tags for those, and I understand he's rather a mapping luminary in the
UK. He's also *been* to the parks in question, and so is familiar with
what they look like on the ground. They, too, encompass villages,
farms, working forest, and mines, as well as recreational areas and
protected wilderness. Nevertheless, they're overseen by what's been
called "the world's strictest zoning board", and development is
rigorously constrained.

> [...] I'd say that using a valid tag
> in a valid way isn't wrong, it's lying for the renderer that is wrong.  [...]

THANK YOU!  'Tagging for the renderer' is doing things like one that I
cleaned up a few years back, when a mapper was drawing depth contours
in a nearby lake as 'highway=cycleway name="20 ft"'. It might produce
a nice blue dotted line on the map, but it's got nothing to do with
the feature! (Bathymetry is something that OSM doesn't contemplate
mapping, so these simply got deleted after discussion with the mapper
in question). It isn't 'tagging for the renderer' when I look at a
state park and try to decide whether 'landuse=recreation_ground' or
'leisure=nature_reserve' or 'leisure=park' or 'boundary=national_park'
or one of zoo of other things will be a better fit under current
tagging practice. It's tagging for the future when I also tag
'boundary=protected_area protect_class=21' - even if we decide that
protect_classes other than IUCN's were a bad idea, that tagging says
that a mapper thought about the situation and decided on that class -
and provides a clear signpost for a task manager or mechanical edit to
convert the tags if we decide on something else.

>> So, I'd like to emphasize:
>>
>>   * The tagging should address protection status and purpose, not what
>> level of government (or private agency, or indigenous community)
>> manages it.
>
> Seems reasonable.  Another tag could be introduced if it were ever necessary to
> state the level of organization that manages it.

site_ownership=* and operator=* seem to do that pretty well, I think.
Some of these features don't even have an admin_level. We have some
pretty big public-access nature reserves managed by NGO's.

>>   * The purpose should be of a sufficiently general nature (e.g.
>> 'recreation') that a typical state park can be preserved as a single
>> named entity.
>
> Ummm, see Pembrokeshire Coast National Park I gave a link for above.  It has towns and
> cities in it.  I doubt you could generalize that sufficiently well.

That's not a good analogue to State Park, and *is* a good analogue to
existing uses of 'boundary=national_park' on both sides of the
Atlantic. (Or 'protect_class=2', but we've already pretty much said,
'class 2 is already covered by national_park, no need for a subtype of
protected_area for it'.) If you read the IUCN guidelines
https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/PAG-021.pdf,
they contemplate that large class-2 areas may function as buffers and
embed other areas of different classes.

In my diary entry about the New York cases, I used Cairngorms National
Park rather than Pembrokeshire Coast as the example, but I understand
that the two present the same sort of situation. I see that the
Britons have also used the tag for 'Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty', but I use protect_class=5 (which in this thread, we're
starting to tentatively call 'protected_landscape') for those.

As far as I can tell, the Britons simply don't have very many features
analogous to our state and county parks, and so don't need a word for
them. I suspect that, rather than any real difference in what 'park'
denotes, accounts for the difference between 'park' as it appears in
US and GB dictionaries, and that native UK-English speakers would not
find it abusive to apply 'park' to the objects we're talking about.
Surely the ignorant colonials pretty much all bend the language that
far; Canada and Australia and New Zealand do have facilities with
similar function and call them 'parks' (often, 'state park' or
'provincial park' in locales that have those forms of government).
Nevertheless, to some extent, we're dealing with "the language of
OpenStreetMap is UK English as interpreted by Germans," so I'd like to
steer well clear of the the word 'park'. It's become a four-letter
word for the purpose of this exercise.

>>   * If the new tag requires a database reload to become a polygon,
>> then it should not conflict with the existing tagging on typical state
>> parks. If the scheme punishes mappers by failing to render correctly
>> tagged features while rendering incorrectly tagged ones, it will not
>> take off.
>
> Not really controversial.  If it breaks things, it won't be used.

THANK YOU for saying that. Too many people around here miss item one
of RFC1925's Twelve Networking Truths
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1925). (Now we have to watch out for
the other eleven. The situation we're living in at present approaches
#3 pretty closely.)

>> The reason for the third bullet is that I understand that a database
>> reload incurs a massive disruption to operations and can be done only
>> for extraordinary reasons.
>
> Yeah, that's a problem.  But that's what area=yes is for.  It may not be what it was intended
> to be for, some might consider it a misuse or abuse of tagging, but it works like a duck.

Would it be appropriate to propose a mechanical edit to add area=yes
to closed ways that are tagged boundary={aboriginal_lands,
national_park, protected_area} and lack any other keys that would make
them polygons?

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

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 21:25, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:

But this doesn't really address the problem. We can't fix State Parks
by making them 'boundary=national_park admin_level=4' because they
don't function as 'national park' in the IUCN deffinition of the term.
Instead, the typical State Park is a hybrid of nature_reserve and
recreation_ground and park and maybe a few other things. Requiring
that those land uses be mapped separately leaves no whole to which the
name and boundary can be assigned, but the whole doesn't really have
anything binding it together other than a protection status, a
coterminous set of boundaries and a name.

Doesn't seem to fit national parks in the UK either.  See Pembrokeshire Coast National

It is entirely within, and occupies a large part of, the county of Pembrokeshire.  It is not
administered by the UK Government, the Welsh Assembly or Pembrokeshire County
Council but by the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority.  See

The PCNPA owns less than 2% of the national park, the rest of it is privately owned.  It contains
13 Special Areas of Conservation, 5 Special Protection Areas, 1 Marine Conservation Zone,
7 National Nature Reserves, 60 Sites of Special Scientific Interest and 265 Scheduled
Ancient Monuments, all of which come under one or another protection scheme and are
administered by different organizations.  See
administered/protected by various different organizations.

It also contains hamlets, villages, town and cities.  As well as everything else you might expect
to find in an area with a resident population of around 22,500 such as golf courses, recreational
parks, etc.

Planning permission within the park is controlled by the PCNPA rather than the County Council.

It's all kind of complicated.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
123