<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<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">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/492570920</a><br></div><div><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/492570920">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?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Fictional example:<br></div><div><br></div><div>in Farawaystan military calls important military bases "National parks"<br></div><div>Is it taggable as boundary=national_park?<br></div><div><br></div><div>I would say no, and would use boundary=national_park for protected natural wild areas.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Similarly restaurant calling itself "Supermassive dam" would not be tagged waterway=dam<br></div><div>(fictional example).<br></div><div><br></div><div>Restaurant called "Mysterious Garden" ( <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/492570920">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/492570920</a> )<br></div><div>is not taggable as leisure=garden based on it name.<br></div><div><br></div><div>National Park Service case is trickier as they administer also things fitting<br></div><div>boundary=national_park tagging.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Apr 29, 2021, 04:33 by zelonewolf@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>Interestingly, the National Park Service says[1]: "The President of the United States lives in a National Park" (referring to President's Park). This was a trivia item I remember from my grade school days. So the question is how much weight we put on the NPS calling something a National Park, as compared to the IUCN definitions of National Park (which OSM's protected area scheme is largely based on).<br></div><div><br></div><div>[1] <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.nps.gov/whho/index.htm">https://www.nps.gov/whho/index.htm</a><br></div><div>[2] <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-areas-categories/category-ii-national-park">https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-areas-categories/category-ii-national-park</a><br></div></div><div><br></div><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 10:31 PM Zeke Farwell <<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="mailto:ezekielf@gmail.com">ezekielf@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I think I agree with you, Joseph. I could be convinced that the larger parks qualify, but not the smaller ones. For reference, Here's a map of all the land the National Park Service owns in Washington, DC. I had no idea they owned all these little parks.<br></div><div><a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://arcg.is/04eHzT" target="_blank">https://arcg.is/04eHzT</a><br></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div> </body>
</html>