[Talk-us] Parks in the USA, leisure=park, park:type

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

It may be emerging that tagging boundary=protected_area (where correct) where leisure=park now exists and we delete it, begins to supersede leisure=park on many North American now-called-parks.  I think that's OK, maybe even overdue.  To be clear, there are plenty of "we now call them parks" which are more like protected_area boundary areas or maybe "it is what it is today, nothing more."

A hazy sort-of-emerging along with this is wider recognition that a proto_park thingy exists.  Put it in the planning departments "bin" for "department of parks budget, depending how much we convert protected_area into human-leisure-activity in the next budget or ten."  Maybe never, humanity and this planet can hope.  Hey, this could be a park someday if and as we improve it.

Ech, did I just say that's what we 'mericans do with some of our landuse planning?  Maybe.  I try not to get political here, rather, I endeavor to simply tag well.  I've seen kids on bikes go under fences and around things and treat "certain areas" just like an admittedly fully raw and completely undeveloped park, even though it isn't one.  Sometimes with respect, simply hiking around.  What is that?  Humans being human.  We should map those, accurately.

I think the greatest thing to "shake out" of this so far is that the leisure=park tag can (and should be) frequently be dismissed in preference to boundary=protected_area.  This alone will assert a great deal of sanity back into things around here.  Whether we invent a tag called proto_park ('cause there are such things, the city council just hasn't budgeted or spent the money to build it into a more fully human-leisure-place, yet).

Ahhh.  The more people talk about this (leisure=park tagging going away from where it doesn't belong), the more it feels like consensus.

SteveA