[Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

Bill Ricker bill.n1vux at gmail.com
Tue Oct 1 16:02:01 UTC 2019


> 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.


Yes they do.

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;


Yes.
(Although metadata hygiene is a valid goal in itself, one that is being
abused needs extra flossing and irrigation.)

> 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.


In many other matters we say we map the signage.
That is not a bad place to start here.
So a rule of it needs at least a name and/or a physical sign would be
internally consistent and predictably OSMish.

(And no, "Cabrillo Park Court Undeveloped Tract" is not a Park name, it's a
lot/tract name. It's a Lot.)

An exception to allow for un-named de-facto parks when someone (official or
guerilla) is engaged in improvements and maintenance of the de-facto park
would be wise, to cover the corner cases where it's legally a vacant lot
but in reality it's a public good.
(I type while looking out the window at one such, and no, it's not my
doing.)

There is no useful SQ FT minimum on official parks.
Guinness and Portland Parks (ORE) recognizes a 3 SQ FT park as officially
smallest and official:
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill_Ends_Park    452 sq in (0.292 m2)
(After 20+ years, this guerrilla park was recognized by the city, and now
even has lilliputian signage. Keep Portland Weird folks!)

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,


Right.
Landuse / land tenurage imports are interesting sources for alternate
basemap layers, but should not be confused with  primary mapping;  and
entries under landuse / tenurage should not be confused with Amenities.

Parks Dept may not have the budget or approved plans to en-park-ify
everything that is transferred to their control immediately. Transfer of
Ownership doesn't magically confer signage, waste cans, benches, curfew
gates, lighting, and other improvements.

If Parks Dept lists it as a public amenity on their public website - not
just the GIS - then it can be a park even if it isn't yet named or signed.

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.
>

I Agree.
Mapper 2 asks a good question, how to map the proto-park; this is a hint
for where the Wiki needs more wikignome work.
Ownership by County Parks should be reflected as
land-use/tenurage/restrictions; it does not imply an amenity.
De facto public use does not make an un-tended acre a Park.


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1vux at gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20191001/7dc6303e/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list