[Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

[Kevin]

All of these cases are somewhat deceptive and deserve more research.  In
cases 1, 3, and 4 -  these areas are slivers or discontinuous areas from
actual parks.  Case 2 may also be a discontinuous area, but it's not as
obvious as the other areas. My suggestion would be to zoom out a little bit
and see what's going on around these weird little areas and clean them up
so that they represent reality.  So the problem isn't really "is this a
park or not" exactly, but an issue of scale of the original source data.


On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 10:27 AM Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> 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"
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20191001/b6a0b109/attachment.html>