Changeset: 41569837
Merged the Fisk property portions of Riverside State Park into the rest of the park
Closed by GwenDragoness
Tags
build | 2.4-21-g233799c |
---|---|
created_by | Potlatch 2 |
version | 2.4 |
Discussion
-
Comment from Carnildo
I *really* don't like the idea of calling Riverside State Park a "national park": it's an administrative conglomerate of all sorts of things, ranging from the highly-protected Little Spokane area, to Parks Department land, to DNR campgrounds, to land owned by Avista that was logged earlier this year.
-
Comment from GwenDragoness
I'm fairly confident that this tag is correct, and I'm willing to stand by it. Allow me to explain my reasoning. Like leisure=nature_reserve, boundary=national_park is used more broadly than the normal English interpretation of the phrase would suggest. It is generally used for any government-declared boundary for a large park which is mostly natural open space. The OSM wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dnational_park) has some of this information, albeit not in much detail. In the US, it is commonly used for National Parks (of course), but also National Forests, National Monuments, National Recreation Areas, State Parks, Regional Parks, and various other state and regional park-like areas. I haven't seen it used for state parks in Washington yet, but many of the state parks, state recreation areas, etc. in California are tagged this way. IIRC, Canadian provincial parks are tagged this way as well. Also IIRC, there was a proposal to add a boundary=regional_park in order to make this more intuitive, but I think the proposal hasn't gone anywhere, and that tag does not render. To respond more directly to your comment, I think that the varied ownership status of Riverside State Park is supportive of its designation as boundary=national_park. To quote the OSM wiki page: "National parks are rather like administrative boundaries around large areas (and may in fact include cities) whereas nature reserves are more evident on-the-ground." As an example of this, National Forests (which are almost always tagged with boundary=national_park) are a similar situation, where the government has declared a boundary, but the land within that boundary may be owned by many different organizations, including the USFS, but also the DNR, the BLM, private individuals, private conservation organizations, state or regional organizations, etc. I also think that Mt. Spokane State Park and Liberty Lake Regional Park should be tagged this way, but not necessarily any of the other regional parks in Spokane County. I also think it might be suitable for the BLM Recreation Areas (i.e.: Fishtrap), but I'm not sure of this. This tagging scheme also has the advantage that it allows large parks to be visible at zoom levels 7-9, even though leisure=park is not rendered at those zoom levels. I am willing to reverse the change if you have good evidence that my reasoning is not correct, but if this is in fact the case, then I have a lot of park land in California to correct as well. Let me know what you think.
-
Comment from Carnildo
I think someone should invent a time machine so I can go back in time and swat whoever thought "national_park" was a good tag name for "large, generally wilderness-style recreation area".
Ways (1)
Relations (2)
Nodes (3)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |