[talk-au] Consistent tagging of botanic gardens around Australia - leisure=park vs leisure=garden

[Daniel Graus]

Recently, the Sydney Royal Botanic Gardens were changed from leisure=garden
to leisure=park. This change prompted some discussion (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/73984430) but no firm conclusions
really arose, with the gardens still being mapped as a park at this stage.


As botanic gardens are a reasonably common feature of major Australian
cities, I looked at other cases around Australia, and found that tagging on
these areas is quite inconsistent, with some being tagged as gardens such
as Melbourne’s Royal Botanic Gardens, the Adelaide Botanic Gardens and (up
until recently) Sydney’s Royal Botanic Gardens. Whereas, the Brisbane City
Botanic Gardens, the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens, and several others
are mapped as parks.


As the previously linked discussion highlighted, these spaces are quite
diverse in their use and could easily be interpreted as parks, but at the
same time, their design, function and general day to day use is
considerably more horticulture/botany focused when compared to (as some
examples) Hyde park in Sydney or the larger area of Kings Park in Perth.


Additionally (also as discussed in the link), the tag garden:type=botanical
descends in "tagging hierarchy" (whatever that is worth) from
leisure=garden. The notion that this tag should be removed from a
functional botanical garden or that it should sit alongside leisure=park
doesn’t seem like it’s correct.


Should all botanical gardens be changed to match one another? Is
leisure=park or leisure=garden more correct in some/the majority/all of
these cases?


Regards,

Daniel (WoodWoseWulf)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20190924/dc09fac7/attachment.html>