[Tagging] Recreation_ground (landuse vs leisure)

hannes.janetzek@gmail.com hannes.janetzek at googlemail.com
Mon May 27 11:58:32 UTC 2013


On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:29 PM, <Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> wrote:

>
> Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de> writes:
>
> > On 27.05.2013 00:47, Greg Troxel wrote:
> >>
> >> Hannes <hannes.janetzek at googlemail.com> writes:
> >>> Sorry, I was not aware of that policy. I will discuss such edits in
> future.
> >>> Please revert if they are unreasonable
> >>
> >> You should revert them yourself.  If you aren't comfortable doing
> >> reverts, you should not be running a bot.
> >
> > I disagree - he should not revert his previous edits which were genuine
> > improvements. If anything at all, he could revert this particular edit
> > of *=recreation_ground ways. But if you actually believe that it was
> > wrong, you could just as well do it yourself - it will be dealt with
> > faster that way.
>
> I meant only to comment on the {leisure/landuse}=recreation_ground issue.
>
>
To clarify, my commit message was probably not correctly worded. The change
was for features that contained *both* landuse=recreation_ground and
leisure=recreation_ground. Having recreation_ground twice with one tag
documented (proposed and accepted) and the other not seemed to me
superfluous.


> > I also want to point out that Hannes is not "running a bot". He is,
> > apparently, simply using JOSM.
>
> I looked at the changeset and it had a bounding box that was
> approximately global.  Sorry for jumping to conclusion of "bot", but
> this also doesn't seem to be "I looked at each item and thought about
> it".  Loading lots of data in josm and using a plugin to change many
> things at once is not so different than a bot.
>
> >> Fixing typos is one thing,
> >> but your leisure->landuse changes are not in the category of "99.5% of
> >> mappers think that they are obviously correct fixes".
> >
> > In the case of recreation_ground, I agree that the number of uses of
> > leisure=recreation_ground should have tipped him off that this might not
> > be an uncontroversial edit.
>
> leisure=recreation_ground is 1.4% of all leisure tags, with 24,011 uses,
> That's not only nowhere near fringe, it makes the first page of taginfo!
>
>   http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/leisure#values
>
> I think it used to be documented, but the wiki doesn't show it now.  I
> don't know if that's because it never was documented, or because the
> documentation has been wikifiddled out of existence.  I don't mean to
> suggest anything in particular about this case, but I have perceived
> attempts to change things in the past by first changing the wiki and
> then claiming it's ok to change tags because of what the wiki says.
> Done publically with discussion, that's progress of course.
>
> landuse=recreation_ground on the other hand, I can't find in taginfo.
>

But it is there actually,
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=landuse%3Drecreation_ground.
Though I have to admit I overlooked the correct number of
leisure=recreation_ground


> There really are multiple different kinds of places (overgeneralizing a
> bit, I know)
>
>   1) park: landscaped, not natural, but has grass
>
>   2) conservation with human hiking/etc. welcome
>
>   3) conservation with human activity not welcome
>
> I use leisure=nature_reserve for 3 and leisure=recreation_ground for 2.
> The point about 2 is that for many areas, they are legally designated
> conservation, and some commission can decide whether to allow
> hiking/cycling/ATVs/snowmobiles/horses etc. just by making rules.  But
> to do anything other than "conservation" requires (in my state) a vote
> of the commission, the entire voters of the town, and an Act of the
> legislature, more or less.   So it's totally fair to say
> landuse=conservation because that's the primary purpose.
>
>
> But with the other changes, things are different. I believe that
> > changing a handful instances of an undocumented tag to an obviously
> > synonymous tag that *is* documented and much more widely used (e.g.
> > 1000x in the case of village green) is valuable cleanup work fully
> > comparable to fixing typos. Without patient contributors silently
> > performing routine housekeeping like that, our database would be even
> > more messy than it already is.
>
> I didn't complain about that.  I agree that some regularization is
> fine, esp. from tags that are all of
>
>   changing from undocumented to documented.
>
>   changing from uncommon to significant weight in taginfo
>
>   obvious to the locals in the country being changed the the replacement
>   tag is better
>
> That's why I said "99.5% of mappers think it's obviously a fix".  If
> that's true, no need to discuss.
>
> Another valuable thing to do would be to look at the tails of taginfo
> and find things that have 2 uses, and look at them and pick more common
> tags that are equally descriptive.  That's very hard if you are not
> local.  So it would be cool to have a query that says "show me tags that
> are globally odd that occur in some area", so local data stewards could
> do local cleanup.  (I have been adjusting
> recreation_ground/nature_reserve tags around me, but they are in areas
> I've hiked through.)
>
> Thanks - I think this is a useful discussion.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130527/c32f8096/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list