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

[Warin]

On 24/09/19 20:56, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On 24/9/19 10:56 am, Daniel Graus wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> OK, a quick global survey....
>
> Of the ~2,500 botanical gardens that are in Wikidata and have a match 
> in OSM there are:
>
> 320 leisure=garden
> 204 leisure=park
>  22 tourism=attraction
>  20 tourism=zoo
>  12 leisure=nature_reserve
>  11 tourism=museum
>   4 tourism=theme_park
>   1 tourism=botanical_garden
>   1 leisure=yes
>
> and 47 with no apparent object tag.
>
> Wikidata lists 37 botanical gardens in Australia that don't have a 
> wikidata tag or aren't mapped. Will have to check these before we can 
> get an Australian list.

There are some ~700 garden:type=botanical  in the OSM data base of some 
~57,000 garden:type=*.
Most, ~ 56,000 are garden:type=residential, with botanical being second 
most frequent.


I don't think the most frequent use in the data base should override a 
logical tagging system, rather the reverse. A logical tagging system is 
far easier to learn and retain in memory rather then an an illogical one.

-------------------------------------
Mapping missing botanic gardens would be worthwhile. They can be 
interesting places to visit, certainly worth a lunch stop.