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

[brad]

It seems that plain language can be used here, and from the Oxford 
dictionary, a park is:
" A large public garden or area of land used for recreation."
It doesn't restrict, as the leisure:park wiki does, to smaller, urban 
human-sculpted parks.
In CO the county, city (some very large parks), and state parks are 
tagged as leisure:park.    This makes sense from the local dialect 
perspective as well as the Oxford english.

Why not simply call anything which is a 'large public area for 
recreation', a park, and specify it additionally with additional tags?

Sorry I'm chiming in late to the discussion, I've been travelling and 
mostly unplugged for a week.

On 4/29/19 5:37 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> The real problem is that we have two linguistic traditions: one is plain
> langauge, and one is tagging tokens.  People keep blurring them, and of
> course this is going to continue.  We end up with having to explain
> "Just becuase it says 'Foo Park' doesn't mean it's a park."  If we had
>
> #define LEISURE_PARK	0x451
>
> and we were talking about if something were a LEISURE_PARK then it would
> be clearer about plain language vs tagging tokens.
>
> OSM Volunteer stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> writes:
>
>> So, what emerges is that going forward, leisure=park is as our wiki
>> describes it (a smaller, urban-scale, human-sculpted place for
>> leisure/recreation), EVEN THOUGH many areas which aren't this are now
>> tagged this way.
> I think that's a correct assessment.  Except that we have to be careful
> about "recreation" -- a place that is largely soccer and baseball fields
> is recreation_ground.  If you mean walking around, then agreed.
>
> In Massachusetts, I'd say an interesting data point in distinguishing
> "park" vs "nature_reserve" is that in a park you are not that likely to
> pick up ticks (ixodes scapularis), and in a nature_reserve it is very
> likely.  But that's just a proxy for "sculpted" vs "natural".
>
>> Going forward, NEW "parks" (in the USA) get this tag only as it is
>> meant/now wiki-described, as we use the Existing 4 more properly.  In
>> other words, it is correct to use the Existing 4 INSTEAD of solely
>> leisure=park when appropriate.  Simultaneously, it is inevitable that
>> many now-tagged-leisure=parks will have that tag changed to one of the
>> other Existing 4.  Yes?
> I don't really follow "going forward" and "inevitable".  If you mean:
>
>    We the mailinglist more or less agree, to the extent we ever do, that
>    things that don't meet definition above  should not be leisure=park,
>    and we should tag those things appropriately, both for new objects,
>    and people fixing old objects.
>
> then that sounds right.
>
> Another question is: If we didn't have the special national_park tag,
> how would they be tagged?  I would say that most would be
> leisure=nature_reserve overall, with perhaps some small segments as
> leisure=park, and then a few messy cases (Dry Tortugas, maybe Mesa
> Verde).  I don't seriously expect us to get rid of the national_park
> tag, so that's a moot point.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us