[Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Tue Jul 23 04:08:23 UTC 2019


Kevin,

For your New York State park examples, protect_class=21 might be the best
option, so go ahead and add this tagging, in addition to tagging any
specific areas within that qualify as a leisure=park or nature_reserve

But many State parks on the West Coast are similar to national parks, eg
many State parks in Oregon, Washington and California are protected because
they are areas of outstanding natural beauty. Silver Falls in Oregon is a
good example

These types of State Parks can be tagged as boundary=protected_area with
protect_class=2 or =3 or =5 depending,  or leisure=nature_reserve in many
cases.

Joseph

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 6:40 AM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:

> Summary: I propose that the unifying feature of the typical State Park
> is its protection status, and propose that one tag combination that
> ought to appear on its boundary is `boundary=protected_area
> protect_class=21`. I solicit community feedback before trying to
> stitch this idea into the Wiki or opening a ticket requesting that
> OSM-Carto render these areas.
>
> (I wrote a much longer diary entry about this at
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv/diary/390260 that presents
> some of the background and argues in much greater detail. I hope that
> it could serve as the foundation of a Wiki description. I make a
> briefer discussion below.)
>
> Over the few years that I've contributed to OSM, I've seen several
> quite acrimonious controversies erupt over the tagging of State Parks
> in the US. The controversy seems to stem from the fact that although
> State Parks are named and signed as unified wholes, a typical State
> Park is multiple things according to the OSM data model and therefore
> 'ought' to be mapped as components: this part is a recreation ground,
> this part is a nature reserve, this part is indeed a 'park' in the
> sense of a sculpted landscape for visual enjoyment, and so on. There
> is no place for the whole.
>
> Likewise, 'boundary=national_park' has been controversial for State
> Parks. While some 'quack like a duck', many more don't look like or
> perform the same function as our National Parks. Moreover, some
> mappers object to 'boundary=national_park' for any feature that
> doesn't have National Park in its name, or any feature that is not
> administered by the National Park Service.
>
> Recently, it occurred to me that one aspect that does unify a State
> Park is the idea of protection. A State Park is a protected_area. None
> of the classes 1-6 fits it, because, generally speaking, it is not a
> nature-protected area. Rather, it is a community-protected area. It
> may be extensively developed with recreational facilities, but it is
> protected against someone buying the land and strip-mining it or
> building condos. In fact, on the Wiki page,
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Social-protected-area
> - I see class 21: 'community protected area', listing typical
> protection objects as, religious, sacred areas, associative areas, and
> recreation. We therefore already have appropriate tagging for this
> type of protection! (Unfortunately, it doesn't yet render. That's
> fixable, I presume.)
>
> In fact, some time ago, I had gone through New York State facilities,
> and tagged the recreational ones with exactly this combination. At the
> time, it was not with the intention of floating a proposal such as
> this, it was out of ignorance - I saw what appeared to be the
> appropriate protection class on the Wiki, and used it. At the time, I
> didn't check taginfo or Overpass, and so was entirely unaware that I
> was virtually the only mapper to use the `protect_class=21` tag. New
> York therefore could provide a test case.
>
> Of course, we can continue to have a healthy discussion over
> `landuse=*` and `leisure=*` for these areas, but I wonder if all the
> parties can at least agree that tagging these features as protected
> areas is correct and appropriate? If so, we can ask that the renderer
> work off the protection status and at least have some common ground to
> start from, allowing the features to appear on the map without dispute
> even as the taxonomic arguments continue.
>
> Given the amount of heat that has surrounded the tagging of State
> Parks, I raise this idea with some trepidation, but ... what do other
> mappers think? (For what it's worth, I've run the idea in private past
> a few of the more strident voices, and while there has been the
> expected quibbling over details, nobody seems to have a real objection
> to the broad contours of the idea.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190723/c9cc7406/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list