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

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

On 4/25/2019 8:39 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
>
A hazy sort-of-emerging along with this is wider recognition that a proto_park thingy exists.  

And on Fri Apr 26 22:44:56 UTC 2019, Jmapb <jmapb at gmx.com> replied:
Sounds like a good case for some lifecycle prefixes -- proposed:leisure=park or planned:leisure=park.

Excellent!  Yes, "lifecycle prefixes" are perfect for this.  My (careful, though I have "burned my fingers" using proposed before, and got spoken to by the DWG — the three of us had a nice lunch together — but that was years ago about a national mess I was cleaning up and we've straightened it out, as in WikiProject USBRS) experience with "proposed" is to use it on something which is "brought to fruition to, with or by public officials so responsible; clearly planned" at least and the funding is "programmed or likely to be."  That can get tricky, as sometimes funding lingers in limbo for a long time, like on California High Speed Rail (which I recently scaled back in OSM because our new Governor did).  But I certainly agree with your

Once park construction has begun, construction:leisure=park. And finally just leisure=park when it opens.

As clearly, construction only happens with funding.

Thank you for reminding us about lifecycle prefixes!

>
 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.

We have access=permissive, but I don't think a hole in a fence really
counts as "permissive." (I think de facto access to an area with no
fence/no signage/no enforcement *could* be called permissive.)

I, stevea, agree.  Thank you for your perspective and I hope it clarifies for others reading.

Other than that I can't think of any tags that would be applicable to
these sorts of situations. We tend to tag the regulations themselves,
not the extent to which they're adhered to. Certainly just calling it a
park because kids play there doesn't seem consistent with OSM standards.
We don't raise the speed limit in places where everyone speeds, or tag
bicycle=yes on ways where they're prohibited but frequently used.

No, I think leisure=playground aligns a bit more closely with "kids play here," though some people like snap-tight definitions, others consider things as much more elastic.  It's difficult to please everybody; semantics can be messy.  I'm glad we're better sharpening up leisure=park, it deserves more good discussion.