From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Park type

park:type=* should be added to the schema. Values are:
park:type=neighborhood_park, etc. (see Taginfo for current uses)

parktype=* and park_type=* are also used, but most values entered are not "real" park types, unlike the values for park:type=* above--Ponzu 07:31, 12 April 2011 (BST)

The word "type" is to be avoided in a tagging schemes. Anything can have a type, and "type" can refer to any kind of attribute. It's too tempting a word to go for, and too ambiguous.
Also we have a convention of "tag chaining" which would seem to be more appropriate for this kind of categorisation. So something like: "leisure=park" + "park=regional" I suggest would fit better with the way tags have always been designed in the past. Notice how this also avoids any colon or underscore characters.
-- Harry Wood 16:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Any chance of this getting revived and used somehow? I think park=regional etc sounds good and it would help define park types better. Which is badly needed. Adamant1 (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Slim chance. People don't read documentation and the voting process doesn't work. Just use the tag. T99 (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Why only relations?

Why is this tag marked as only usable with relations? I've always used it in lines (areas, actually) with no problems, either on Potlatch or iD and they render correctly on Mapnik. --Nighto (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the icons, the third on is for usable on areas (mouse over it to see) not relations SK53 (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Oops! You're absolutely right. Thanks! =) --Nighto (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be used on nodes?

The icons on the right say it shouldn't be used on nodes (and apparently that's how JOSM sees it, too) whereas the "How to map" section says "set a node _or_ draw and area". This should be made consistent. Meanwhile I'll just set it on a node that I found mapped with only tourism=attraction named "Nam Dong Park", but it's not obvious from aerial images what area is actually covered by that park. Mbethke (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Street landscaping?

Is this the correct tag to use for areas around highways, streets and trails landscaped with planted grass, bark, shrubs and small trees? The setting is usually very similar to proper parks and the areas are maintained by the Parks&Rec department but you are generally not supposed to enter these areas for leisure. --T99 (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Parks which are not municipal. Example?

Currently the page says "Parks are often but not always municipal." What's a good example of a correctly mapped leisure=park which is not municipal?

How about this private park managed by a homeowners' association (not by a city or a county). --T99 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

In the data I can see plenty of examples of (what I'd consider to be) incorrect use of the leisure=park covering big rural areas, so it would be good to get clarity on that, and give an example on the page.

-- Harry Wood (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Morden Hall Park in London belongs to the National Trust.--Andrew (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah OK "municipal" as in belonging to the government. That's another dimension on the meaning of that sentence. I was thinking of municipal as in "in a town/city". Maybe the sentence could be clarified "Parks are often but not always municipal (government owned)"
What I'm actually trying to work out is whether it's legit to have the leisure=park tag on a big area in a rural location outside of any town or city, as in "national park" big wide rural space.
It is being used as such, and it means this tag gets used on two different types of thing with very different character. I did write this section on the page to try to avoid this Tag:leisure=park#National Parks but some people are confused by that, because the rural area is not necessarily designated as a "national park" (and so it feels wrong to tag it as such)
-- Harry Wood (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Parks which consist mostly of natural ecosystems (as opposed to man-made landscapes) should probably be tagged as leisure=nature_reserve. Example: Traylor Ranch Nature Reserve --T99 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Definition of parks

What constitutes a park needs to clarified better. At this point the definition is to wide. Which has led to a lot of miss tagging and bickering over what can be tagged as a park or not. If nothing else, something like "A park is an area of natural, semi-natural or planted space set aside for human enjoyment and recreation or for the protection of wildlife or natural habitats" which is from Wikipedia should be added so things like food courts in shopping centers, grassy areas outside of corporate offices don't get tagged as parks. Either way though, it should be clear what exactly a park is so its not just "an open space where people are." It should also be clear how a park is different from meadow, grassland, or a lone trail. If a park requires trees/grass, the wiki should explicitly say so. It should also be clear what alternatives there are, like place=square and when the appropriate time to use the alternatives are. Some places public places like zoos, fairgrounds, and amphitheaters are tagged as park because of the ambiguity, which they obviously aren't, and it could be as much due to them not being listed as alternatives then anything else. Having a clearer definition of a park would probably help.

Also what constitutes a municipal vs private park should better defined. Currently there are a bunch grassy areas outside apartment complexes, commercial areas, and front yard lawns getting tagged as parks. Its hard to dispute that they shouldn't be tagged that way when the wiki definition is not clear on it. Saying "A park is an area of open space provided for recreational use" isn't enough and it should be stated that to qualify for a park the area has to be usable by the general public and created for that purpose. In my opinion if the general public can't use the spot as a leisure area, it shouldn't be tagged as park. If people have to pay for access to the area or its main use is retail, it shouldn't qualify. It should be clear how parks are different from parklets or other similar temporary "open urban spaces" also. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not define the meaning of tags in OSM. You are welcome to improve the documentation of this tag (and it could really use improvement) but this needs to aim at documenting what leisure=park means in OSM and not what it should mean according to some subjective opinion.
The main problem with leisure=park is that many mappers view this based on some culture specific understanding of what a park is which does not necessarily have much to do with what leisure=park is primarily used for. See also Talk:Tag:landuse=recreation ground.
--Imagico (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. That's why I said "something like." I don't want the definition to be subjective either, that's why I brought this up in the first place. There still needs to be a better starting point to get to the definition then currently exists though. Hence the Wikipedia reference. Especially since as you say there is the cultural use of the tagging going on, which is hard to get around. It seems like other tags aren't beholden to that though and in most of conflicts I have had over the use of the tag it seems more like an issue of not being properly defined more then anything. I read the debate going on in landuse=recreation_ground. Its very similar, but I feel like "park" is a little less vague of a term and maybe a discussion about it wont get stalled out like it did there. If only a few of my complaints get resolved and only a few people give input on it that would at least be some progress. I'm really not sure how to improve the documentation myself at this point anyway. So id at least like some feedback and clarity before I do. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
IMHO, a private park is a park just as much as a public park is a park, like a private road is a road just as much as a public road is a road. Additional tags such as operator=* or access=* can be used to indicate other details, and the map renderer can use those tags to decide how to render the park. T99 (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
T99, I guess. For me private versus is more about ownership then usage. For instance, you can have a privately owned park that is still open to the public. So access tags wouldn't really be appropriate. Where as if its a privately owned "park" but also has private access, then its just something like a playground or grassy area in front of an apartment complex that only the residents can use and shouldn't be classified as a park. They same goes for "common" areas at universities in my opinion. There's also public places like universities that have private courtyards or common grassy leisure areas that are sometimes tagged as parks but I don't think they should count because they are open to the public. So I think the classification for private versus public as it relates to parks should account for both access and ownership. Otherwise, I might as well let the Pokemon Go mappers in my area have at it and turn all their front lawns into parks because them and their friends hangout there. The same could go for all the protected areas mapped as parks that shouldn't be because technically they are private access despite being publicly owned. The general public can't lounge around in the them or it would destroy the wildlife. Not to mention a lot of them are swamps. But yet they are still tagged as parks just due to being publicly owned land. At least I assume that's why. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
"Where as if its a privately owned "park" but also has private access, then its just something like a playground or grassy area in front of an apartment complex that only the residents can use and shouldn't be classified as a park" - not always. For example my city has a park that is clearly a park, but as access by a general public is blocked by its current owners Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Mateusz Konieczny, thanks for the example. I guess there is an exception to every rule. In this case it sounds like since the park was originally meant for public use and is now closed, it should be considered abandoned instead of just private. So I don't it really qualifies for what I was saying, since know one uses it anymore. Although I get your general point. I still think a more clear definition of access, ownership, and what should or shouldn't be included as a park would be really helpful. The line on what to include should be drawn somewhere. Maybe ultimately the definition needs to partly be country based like road classifications partly are. Although I do think there are some universals. Id be interested to know what other thoughts, if any, you have on the subjects. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)