[Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Tue Oct 1 14:26:09 UTC 2019


Hi,

the DWG has been called upon to mediate a conflict between mappers, and
one small part of this conflict is the question of "when is a park a park".

Some of you know the persons involved and some of you might *be* the
persons involved but I would like to discuss this not on a personal
level and have therefore tried to separate these examples from any
changeset discussions or usernames, and I'm not providing direct links
to OSM either, to avoid clouding anyone's judgement by mixing up
personal and factual issues.

I have prepared four examples on which I'd like to hear the opinion of a
couple people (if you are one of the mappers in conflict here, please
refrain from participating) but there are more like this.

-------

Case 1:

http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png

Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings. I
believe they might originally have come from an nmixter import with a
"zone=PR-PP" which was then interpreted as meaning it's somehow a
"park". It has temporarily been leisure=park AND natural=beach and
park:type=county_park and now it is boundary=protected_area and
leisure=nature_reserve and park:type=county_park and protect_class=7,
without any indication where that protection comes from (and looking at
the aerial imagery it will be difficult to verify anything).

-------

Case 2:

http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case2.png

The tree-covered green area in the middle of the image is a
leisure=park, the woodland all together (sharing the eastern border of
the "park" but otherwise much larger) is a natural=wood area. In the
south and west the "park" connects to "residential" areas (that are
partly covered by the natural=wood), in the north the park connects to a
landuse=industrial (also partly covered by wood).

One mapper says "not a park", the other mapper says that according to
CPAD 2018a and SCCGIS v5 this is a park (none of these are listed as a
source though) and then proceeds to say:

"It is a park in the sense of American English as of 2019. Whether it is
a park according to OSM may be debatable, as it is an "unimproved" park,
meaning it is under development as to improvements like restrooms and
other amenities. However, it is an "urban green space open to public
recreation" and therefore does meet OSM's definition according to me."

-------

Case 3:

http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case3.png

The highlighted area in the middle of the picture straddles a street and
parts of an amenity=parking north and south of the street and seems to
rather arbitrarily cut through the woodland at its northern edge.

Mapper 1: "This isn't a park. It's just a small fenced off grassy
area.". Mapper 2: "It is a park according to County Park as it meets the
leisure=park definition of "area of open space for recreational use" and
contains amenities (parking)."

It is currently tagged leisure=park.

-------

Case 4:

http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case4.png

Red highlight is a "leisure=park" "zone=PR" (the latter probably left
over from an import). Larger, green area that is mostly overlapping this
"park" but also cutting an edge in the NW is natural=wood.

Mapper 1: "This park doesn't exist." Mapper 2: "It is undeveloped land
managed by County Parks in a sort of proto park state. How would YOU map
this?"

-------

I find that both mappers here make valid points. Generally, in times
where every teenager maps their back porch as a park in the hope of
attracting Pokemon, I am leaning towards being careful with parks; I
would love to have a rule of thumb that says "if it doesn't have a name
(or if it's not more than xxxx sq ft) then it's not a park, it is just
some trees" or so. Just because an area of a few 100 sq ft is
technically a "park" in some county GIS system, doesn't mean we have to
call it a park in OSM, and the idea that any patch of earth with three
trees on it and two cars parked on it is a "park" because it is "open to
the public" and "has amenities" sounds very far-fetched to me.

Also, mapping micro-protected areas on a rocky shore seems to be of
limited value to me and puts a big burden on anyone who wants to verify
that.

But I'd like to hear others chiming in.

(This particular mapper conflict has other dimensions that just parks
and DWG's further actions towards the mappers involved will not depend
on the outcome of this discussion.)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"



More information about the Talk-us mailing list