<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">1 Oct 2019, 16:26 by frederik@remote.org:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Case 1:<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings.<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">It is hard to imagine to me situation where<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">it would be leisure=park.</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left">"zone=PR-PP" which was then interpreted as meaning it's somehow a<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">"park".<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">Is this a typical quality of this import?</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left">Case 2:<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case2.png<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">(...)</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left">One mapper says "not a park", the other mapper says that according to<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">CPAD 2018a and SCCGIS v5 this is a park<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">Aerial image is useless here, it<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">is a tree covered area.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">It may be in addition leisure=park,<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">it may be a dump of nuclear waste,<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">it may be a military polygon.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Is there a chance of on ground photo?</div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">I am unfamiliar with CPAD 2018a and SCCGIS v5.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Is there a good reason to expect that their classification<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">matches OSM classification of objects?</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left">"It is a park in the sense of American English as of 2019. Whether it is<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">a park according to OSM may be debatable, as it is an "unimproved" park,<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">meaning it is under development as to improvements like restrooms and<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">other amenities.<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">I would not expect restrooms to <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">be indicator of leisure=park</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left">However, it is an "urban green space open to public<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">recreation"<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">I am one of people that attempted to<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">improve OSM Wiki documentation<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">of leisure=park<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Note that it (IMHO correctly) explicitly<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">mentions and excludes urban forests.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">See Las Wolski example at<br></div><div style="16px"><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park?uselang=en">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park?uselang=en</a><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">I suspect that it may be situation here.</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left">Case 3:<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case3.png<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">The highlighted area in the middle of the picture straddles a street and<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">parts of an amenity=parking north and south of the street and seems to<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">rather arbitrarily cut through the woodland at its northern edge.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Mapper 1: "This isn't a park. It's just a small fenced off grassy<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">area.". Mapper 2: "It is a park according to County Park as it meets the<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">leisure=park definition of "area of open space for recreational use" and<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">contains amenities (parking)."<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">It is currently tagged leisure=park.<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">Is there a chance of on ground photo?<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Provided data - description and arterial is unable to <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">distinguish between a decorated park lot <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">and a really small park.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">I would give low weight to whatever it is officially considered as a county park </div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left">Mapper 1: "This park doesn't exist." Mapper 2: "It is undeveloped land<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">managed by County Parks in a sort of proto park state. How would YOU map<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">this?"<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">Park is not there so I would not map.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">I would map tree-covered area, maybe trees,<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">water features and paths if present.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Again, is there a chance for on ground photo?</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left">I</div><div style="16px" text-align="left">would love to have a rule of thumb that says "if it doesn't have a name<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">(or if it's not more than xxxx sq ft) then it's not a park, it is just<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">some trees" or so. <br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">See <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/490987980">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/490987980</a><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">that is in my opinion will mapped as<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">leisure=park desire very small <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Though mapping it as a garden may also work.</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left">Just because an area of a few 100 sq ft is<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">technically a "park" in some county GIS system, doesn't mean we have to<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">call it a park in OSM,<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">+1</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left">and the idea that any patch of earth with three<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">trees on it and two cars parked on it is a "park" because it is "open to<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">the public" and "has amenities" sounds very far-fetched to me.<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">+1</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left">Also, mapping micro-protected areas on a rocky shore seems to be of<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">limited value to me and puts a big burden on anyone who wants to verify<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">that.<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">+1</div> </body>
</html>