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
|

Re: Tagging of State Parks in the US

Kevin Kenny-3
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 8:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> 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
> 3 options:
>
> 1) make a proposal to redefine the meaning of [...]
> 2) make a proposal for a new protect_class [...]
> 3) create a new tag, [...]


OK, so here we appear to stand.

Nobody appears to have a substantive objection to considering state
parks as protected areas. The chief objection appears to be that the
existing numeric scheme for protection categories is non-mnemonic and
awkward (to which I agree wholeheartedly!)

I had earnestly hoped to avoid the pain of coming up with a tagging
proposal, in favor of codifying 'best current practice' for tagging
state parks (and, it is hoped, quieting some of the arguments about
it, which had grown quite heated). In fact, before posting here, I'd
ran the proposal by a handful of the most strident users in the
arguments, and actually managed to elicit agreement in principle. My
hope was that a new tagging scheme would be Out Of Scope for the
current discussion.

Nevertheless, the dissatisfaction with the numeric labels will, as far
as I can tell, sink any hope of getting these objects rendered, and
will likely lead to further unproductive arguments on the Wiki.
Accordingly, it appears necessary, however distasteful I find it, to
propose a relabeling of protection classes before considering any
proposal to tag state parks and similar features to be in its final
form.  Accordingly, I'm starting to draft such a proposal at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:_Named_protection_class_for_protected_areas.

So far, I've just sketched a set of values that correspond to the
common (95% or so) cases that 'taginfo' turns up. As with any key
we've ever identified, there are outlier values that cannot really be
addressed (typos, invented values, multiple values, and a variety of
nearly inexplicable things).

Most of the sections are still stubbed; of course, I can grind out
text for them, I just haven't done it yet. I've most likely got some
of the details wrong in what I have written. That's why it's called a
'draft' - please assume that I'm approaching this with good will.

I'm also rather poor at the Naming of Names. I'm hoping against hope
that this idea will not founder on fine details of word choice.
Clearly, not every value will please everyone.

Suggestions are, of course, welcome, bearing in mind the above caveats.

_______________________________________________
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
All looks OK at first glance, Kev, except for one minor typo - you've got two Class 25's - I assume Historic should actually be 26?

Will have a fuller read later :-)

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

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 05:24, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:

I had earnestly hoped to avoid the pain of coming up with a tagging
proposal

I'm sorry to have been amongst those who caused you that pain.
 
Suggestions are, of course, welcome, bearing in mind the above caveats.

Class 26 appears to encompass two things.  Colonial-era entities, if purely
historic, shouldn't concern us.  OTOH, if they are a protected area by virtue
of once being colonial-era entities then they do.  Protectorates (where
they still exist) do concern us, but might be better handled as military
areas or under the proposal that seems to have stalled about country
boundaries.  OTOH, we have (for example) the British military enclaves of
Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus - if you squint hard enough they are
"protected areas."

--
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

Kevin Kenny-3
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 6:58 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 05:24, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Class 26 appears to encompass two things.  Colonial-era entities, if purely
> historic, shouldn't concern us.  OTOH, if they are a protected area by virtue
> of once being colonial-era entities then they do.  Protectorates (where
> they still exist) do concern us, but might be better handled as military
> areas or under the proposal that seems to have stalled about country
> boundaries.  OTOH, we have (for example) the British military enclaves of
> Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus - if you squint hard enough they are
> "protected areas."

I have no good examples to offer.  Overpass finds only 22 such
objects. All appear to be ordinary historic sites, some of which
happen to date back to one or another colonial era. Since whoever
created the page appears to have made the classes beyond 6 out of
whole cloth, it's really hard to figure out. I was hoping that there
might be insight to be gained on this list.

_______________________________________________
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
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 13:41, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:

[Class 26]
I have no good examples to offer.

Me neither.  But I can't say no such objects exist.  It could happen that some place
becomes a protected area because it was once occupied by colonialists, but even
then I'd expect it to fall into another category like national park.

 Since whoever created the page appears to have made the classes beyond
6 out of whole cloth, it's really hard to figure out.

Ah, that explains why the classes beyond 6 seemed weird to me.
 
I was hoping that there might be insight to be gained on this list.

How long have you been here? :)

Unless whoever added those classes is reading this list and feels like speaking up,
we may never know what was intended.

--
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

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:32 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> All looks OK at first glance, Kev, except for one minor typo - you've got two Class 25's - I assume Historic should actually be 26?

Typo corrected, and further notes about class 26 added. (I can't
*quite* count all the instances of class 26 on my own fingers and
toes, but I think I've looked at all of them, and as I note, they all
appear to be mistakes under the confusing definition on the Wiki.)

_______________________________________________
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

Clifford Snow
I've been following this thread but haven't chimed in yet. I wanted to talk to someone that works in State Parks. I contact Neil Lasley with Washington State Parks and asked him his impression of the discussion and how the state view parks. 

Here is what he had to say.

Good to hear from you! I can provide you with an explanation and some reference literature that points to WACs and RCWs to shed some more light on this. (RCW are state laws and WACs are administrative codes)

 

In a nutshell though--tagging them as protected areas sounds like a good idea to me---I support it. I read Kevin Kenny’s reasoning behind wanting to do that, and like he said—while state parks may not be nature-protected areas across the board (some of them are highly developed and definitely aimed more towards public recreation opportunities, and some of them are protected for cultural/historic significance), they are all, in a sense, community-protected areas.

 

The state’s definition of a state park is…                               

State Park: Land generally greater than 10 acres in size, managed to protect and conserve significant scenic, natural and cultural features and to provide public access, facilities, or programs that through recreational, educational, and interpretive experiences connect visitors with those features. 

I’m probably getting out into the weeds here, but I think it’s worth mentioning that there are also state park properties

State Park Properties: Lands owned by the agency that are being held for future development (and lack any real infrastructure).

A lot of mapping platforms (Google Maps) incorrectly label State Park Properties as full-blown State Parks, which confuses the public and is something we hear about often. (We’ve worked with Google several times to correct this, but they’re very slow to act). Regardless of how State Park Properties are labeled, I think tagging them as protected areas also makes sense.

A couple of things jumped out at me. First that parks can have a number of uses from recreation to cultural giving possible different classifications to the park. Second, I am aware of the park holdings but had never added them to OSM. But that might be another classification.

Best,
Clifford
--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
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, Aug 6, 2019 at 5:51 PM Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've been following this thread but haven't chimed in yet. I wanted to talk to someone that works in State Parks. I contact Neil Lasley with Washington State Parks and asked him his impression of the discussion and how the state view parks.
>
> Here is what he had to say.
>
> Good to hear from you! I can provide you with an explanation and some reference literature that points to WACs and RCWs to shed some more light on this. (RCW are state laws and WACs are administrative codes)
>
> In a nutshell though--tagging them as protected areas sounds like a good idea to me---I support it. I read Kevin Kenny’s reasoning behind wanting to do that, and like he said—while state parks may not be nature-protected areas across the board (some of them are highly developed and definitely aimed more towards public recreation opportunities, and some of them are protected for cultural/historic significance), they are all, in a sense, community-protected areas.
>
> The state’s definition of a state park is…
>
> State Park: Land generally greater than 10 acres in size, managed to protect and conserve significant scenic, natural and cultural features and to provide public access, facilities, or programs that through recreational, educational, and interpretive experiences connect visitors with those features.
>
> I’m probably getting out into the weeds here, but I think it’s worth mentioning that there are also state park properties…
>
> State Park Properties: Lands owned by the agency that are being held for future development (and lack any real infrastructure).
>
> A lot of mapping platforms (Google Maps) incorrectly label State Park Properties as full-blown State Parks, which confuses the public and is something we hear about often. (We’ve worked with Google several times to correct this, but they’re very slow to act). Regardless of how State Park Properties are labeled, I think tagging them as protected areas also makes sense.
>
> A couple of things jumped out at me. First that parks can have a number of uses from recreation to cultural giving possible different classifications to the park. Second, I am aware of the park holdings but had never added them to OSM. But that might be another classification.

Good to hear that there's agreement at least in principle from some of
the people who manage these things!

Yes, there are all sorts of things that come under the 'state park'
umbrella. Some actually are nature reserves, with IUCN categories
anywhere from 1b to 6 - including 2, because some function in the same
way as 'national parks' even though they are non-Federal. Some are
historic sites; some are tourism=museum or leisure=golf_course or
landuse=winter_sports or any one of a number of other things. I'm
trying to establish a 'lowest common denominator' that is at least
safe for 'I don't know/something else' and that can be used to make
them all protected areas - they are all protected with legal language
lite the phrase you got from Washington. In particular, I find it hard
to identify any developed state parks that don't either enjoy
natural-area protection (classes 1b-6), or else fall under classes 21
(community: which appears to be used so far in OSM only for recreation
areas) or 22 (cultural: again, appears to be used in OSM only for
protected historic sites).

New York, too, has undeveloped State Parks. I've tagged them case by
case. They all have the protected_area tagging, but some are
'landuse=brownfield' (to quote Facebook, "it's complicated"), some are
'leisure=nature_reserve' (they're not closed to the public, but they
don't have dedicated facilities to support public access either), and
there are one or two that I've just left with the protected area
tagging and 'access=private' because they belong to the Office of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and enjoy protected
status, but are closed to the public.

Some of the undeveloped parks are not listed on the parks.ny.gov web
site but often are recognized and promoted by local governments:
https://www.niskayuna.org/parks/pages/mohawk-river-state-park is an
example. (The page links to a map that is OSM-derived. It's gratifying
to see my own work mapping the park making it back to the local
government! It's also nice to have 50 hectares or so of old-growth
forest right in the middle of suburbia.) Some of the undeveloped ones
are listed: https://parks.ny.gov/parks/49/details.aspx is an example.
I get the impression that the choice is more a function of whether the
staff have had the time to prepare the information, than any formal
policy.

_______________________________________________
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

Mark Wagner
In reply to this post by Clifford Snow
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 14:49:40 -0700
Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I’m probably getting out into the weeds here, but I think it’s worth
> mentioning that there are also *state park properties*…
>
> *State Park Properties:* Lands owned by the agency that are being
> held for future development (and lack any real infrastructure).
>
> A lot of mapping platforms (Google Maps) incorrectly label *State Park
> Properties* as full-blown *State Parks,* which confuses the public
> and is something we hear about often.

Google Maps is hardly the only one incorrectly labeling "state park
properties" as "state parks".  The parks department does it as well.

I recently visited what may or may not have been a "state parks
property", and the signs calling it "Riverside State Park" outnumbered
those calling it "Fisk State Park Property" 2 to 1.  For that matter,
the signs calling it "Lake Spokane State Park" were just as numerous as
those calling it a "state park property".

--
Mark

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