[talk-au] park vs nature reserve

Paul Norman penorman at mac.com
Tue Jun 25 10:07:00 UTC 2013


> From: SomeoneElse [mailto:lists at mail.atownsend.org.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 1:47 AM
> To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] park vs nature reserve
> 
> Paul Norman wrote:
> > It's important to remember that leisure=park doesn't apply to all
> parks.
> 
> I'm guessing that the second "park" in that sentence is used in the
> North American "national/state park" sense whereas the one in the
> original question usage sounded closer to British English usage*.
> 
> However one example, Kings Park in Perth, has it's entire area as a
> "leisure=park", even the "maintained bushland" part:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4850399

I've not been to Perth, so I can't comment, but based on the paths, I could
see it being either way.

> This does make some sense to me as the maintenance of the bushlands part
> is surely just as artificial as the manicured lawns to the east.  The
> first English stateley home parks were very much "highly engineered to
> look natural" too.

The examples I was thinking of were places like Yellowstone National Park
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1453306) which is about 9
thousand square kilometers, or closer to me, the North Cascades, which is
notable for its rugged mountain peaks.

A comparable Australian example would be if someone tagged Litchfield
National Park as leisure=park




More information about the Talk-au mailing list