[Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Sun Jul 28 05:40:42 UTC 2019

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 9:36 PM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> I'm on board with a state park specific tag.  I find protect class to be a clunky answer and not entirely humanly intuitive compared to something like leisure=state_park

The non-intuitiveness may prove to be a hidden advantage. At least
there's very little existing tagging (other than the fiction of
calling state parks boundary=national_park) that the usage would
break. It defuses a lot of, "but I can't retag all the existing ones
in my state!" (which are tagged differently from every other state,
but all the others are WRONG!)

It's a compromise that absolutely nobody is going to be happy with.
But in about five years of trying to work with these things, I don't
think I've seen an idea for how to tag them that has had any prayer of
getting a majority.

It's also rather a different concept. Rather than, "this is a state
park", it's "this is public-access land that a government has
protected in perpetuity for recreational purposes" - which is a fact
that can be established in the promulgation of the boundary and the
law that established it. It also avoids the word, 'park', which in OSM
is a term of art that does not encompass anything close to the entire
spectrum of land uses that the word in common parlance conveys to
virtually all US English speakers and many English speakers in the

More information about the Tagging mailing list