https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |
Hi Harry, I actually think that's the 'most appropriate' tag currently. Maybe also a bit 'too appealing' since most county and municipal 'conservation areas' such as this one are called "Open Space" and "open space" is used in the tagging language http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark - it may be best to discuss with the OSM-US Talk list that these should be migrated into http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area maybe protect class 6 or 7
Oh, hey - wasn't logged-in; this is Russ by the way. And, boundary=national_park is a tag that I would like to see deprecated. In the USA, a National Park is a much different thing (i.e. managed by the National Park Service) but in OSM doesn't mean the same thing, but we've discussed multiple times that National Parks, National Forests, National Monuments, National Heritage Sites, etc. (not all managed by NPS) due all fit boundary=protected_area with one of the protect_class=# - think this is most recent thread: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2016-May/016233.html
oh, sorry, didn't mean to '& Resolve' :)
There's certainly a mismatch between the physical reality and the map data here. I'd say some sort of boundary tag should represent the official designated area if that's what this imaginary square line represents (?) Some sort of natural/landuse tag can then be drawn avoiding weird square shapes, and sticking to physical reality of what we see in the imagery.
Yes, if you look to the south and west, all those 'square' 'parks' are mostly these "Open Space Parks" which are 'imaginary boundaries' typically designated in square acreage - however, they often do have a fence where it borders private property/roadways/etc. as they want people to use designated entry points, etc.
Jumping into this old note - a lot of CO state parks do use boundary=protected_area and protect_class=4-7. These may or may not be joined with a leisure=park tag, depending on how people use the space. I don't see an obvious reason why boundary and leisure tags would conflict with each other, so I have added some to Clear Creek Canyon Park, Mount Galbaith Park and the conservation easement. Take a look and tell me if you like how it looks.
As for whether or not the lines are "real", they are in a legal sense - for those not familiar with life in the west, our lives (and property lines) are dominated by the township and section lines of the PLSS, so there are very commonly giant straight lines dividing things. This is in contrast to the east coast where the property lines are older, and tended to follow natural features. Now if you are arguing that all boundaries are inherently imaginary, then I'd agree, but only after two beers.