[talk-au] Consistent tagging of botanic gardens around Australia - leisure=park vs leisure=garden
61sundowner at gmail.com
Tue Sep 24 23:16:52 UTC 2019
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
Most, ~ 56,000 are garden:type=residential, with botanical being second
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.
More information about the Talk-au