[Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks

[Mateusz Konieczny]

1 Oct 2019, 16:26 by frederik at remote.org:

>
> Case 1:
>
> http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png
>
> Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings.
>
It is hard to imagine to me situation where
it would be leisure=park.
> "zone=PR-PP" which was then interpreted as meaning it's somehow a
> "park".
>
Is this a typical quality of this import?
> Case 2:
>
> http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case2.png
>
(...)
> One mapper says "not a park", the other mapper says that according to
> CPAD 2018a and SCCGIS v5 this is a park
>
Aerial image is useless here, it
is a tree covered area.

It may be in addition leisure=park,
it may be a dump of nuclear waste,
it may be a military polygon.

Is there a chance of on ground photo?
I am unfamiliar with CPAD 2018a and SCCGIS v5.

Is there a good reason to expect that their classification
matches OSM classification of objects?
> "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.
>
I would not expect restrooms to 
be indicator of leisure=park
> However, it is an "urban green space open to public
> recreation"
>
I am one of people that attempted to
improve OSM Wiki documentation
of leisure=park

Note that it (IMHO correctly) explicitly
mentions and excludes urban forests.

See Las Wolski example at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park?uselang=en <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park?uselang=en>

I suspect that it may be situation here.
> 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.
>
Is there a chance of on ground photo?

Provided data - description and arterial is unable to 
distinguish between a decorated park lot 
and a really small park.

I would give low weight to whatever it is officially considered as a county park 
> 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?"
>
Park is not there so I would not map.

I would map tree-covered area, maybe trees,
water features and paths if present.

Again, is there a chance for on ground photo?
> 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. 
>
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/490987980 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/490987980>
that is in my opinion will mapped as
leisure=park desire very small 

Though mapping it as a garden may also work.
> 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,
>
+1
> 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.
>
+1
> 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.
>
+1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20191005/4d889bc8/attachment.html>