<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 2:41 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us <<a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>Nearly real example:<br></div><div>In Poland developers call nearly all new housing under names<br></div><div>"Something Park"<br></div><div><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/492570920" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/492570920</a><br></div><div><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/492570920" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/492570920</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>I never heard about "National Park", but lets say that it exists.<br></div><div>Is it taggable as boundary=national_park?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Does the Polish Ministerstwo Środowiska describe them as a National Park on their official website? No? Then it isn't a comparable example.</div><div><br></div><div>That said, I would tend to think that the NPS description of "the President lives in a National Park" to be a case of marketing rather than true NP nomenclature. If you look at the listing at (<a href="https://www.nps.gov/state/dc/index.htm">https://www.nps.gov/state/dc/index.htm</a>), it does not give a "National Park" heading to President's Park (nor other properties in DC) which seem to confirm this to be marketing rather than a deliberate categorization. Whereas, if you look at the list for Arizona (<a href="https://www.nps.gov/state/az/index.htm">https://www.nps.gov/state/az/index.htm</a>), it gives a "National Park" header to Grand Canyon, Petrified Forest, etc. Note that I would consider the NPS listing to be the authoritative source on this and not 3rd party websites.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding the "The Civil War Defences of Washington", which has no NPS nomenclature assigned to them, to me, these are similar to and should be tagged in a way that's similar to National Historic Sites, which we do not tag as National Parks (as presently described in the US Public Lands article).</div><div><br></div><div>In summary, it seems clear to me that the collection of parks formerly known as the "National Capital Parks", are not equivalent in form, fit, and function to places like Yosemite NP, Glacier NP, Grand Canyon NP, etc, so I'd tend to agree with the sentiment that these should not be tagged as national parks, but rather as parks and/or historic sites as appropriate for each property.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div>