Proposal:Park boundary/Case studies

Warwick, Rhode Island, USA Case Study

This case study examines two very similar parks in the city of Warwick, Rhode Island, USA Warwick, Rhode Island, USA. It is intended to demonstrate the existence of this class of park as well as show that there is often no distinction between state and city parks:

Warwick City Park Warwick City Park, a local, partially-wooded mixed-use park.
Goddard State Park Goddard State Park, a partially-wooded mixed-use state park

Map Comparison

Warwick City Park: 11739119 11739119	Tagging notes
	The boundary boundary of Warwick City Park is tagged with `leisure=park`. There are also overlapping regions of `natural=wood` that reflect natural wooded areas. This is incorrect, because the most of the park is tagged with `leisure=park` and `natural=wood` in order to indicate wild, natural wooded areas within the park boundary. However, this tag combination implies "manicured, wooded areas", which is not what is present. In this case, the renderer has "guessed right" in rendering the `natural=wood`, but there is no way to know from this rendering whether those areas are inside or outside the park. Internal regions not otherwise tagged default to the rendering of `leisure=park`, correctly indicating manicured park land. While the park name label does render, the park boundary is not visible because of the overlapping `natural=wood` areas. It is impossible to tell whether the park extends into the Buttonwoods neighborhood to the south, or into the wetland areas to the north and northwest.

Goddard State Park: 11582427 11582427	Tagging notes
	The boundary boundary of Goddard State Park is tagged with `boundary=protected_area` and `protect_class=5`. This tag combination causes the boundary to render, however, this park is not a conservation area. This is an example of tagging for the renderer. However, there is no semantically-correct way to tag a park border that renders. There are overlapping regions of `natural=wood` that reflect natural wooded areas. Internal regions of manicured park land are explicitly tagged with `leisure=park`. Both the park boundary and internal regions are visible. Internal features are tagged as applicable, e.g. the large public `leisure=golf_course` area. In this example, there is also a private golf course adjacent to and east of park. Without the rendering of the boundary, it would be impossible to determine that one golf course is inside the park and the other is outside the park.

Warwick City Park Photo Gallery

These photos of Warwick City Park demonstrate the mixed-use character of this park. Note that the photos are geotagged, and contain the exact location in the park where the photos were taken.

Entrance sign
Gazebo and historical Marker
Parking aign
Manicured area
Wooded track road
Wild, natural wooded areas
Foot path
Open field
WDog park within the park
Soccer fields
Picnic area
Interpretive sign
Nature trail entrance
Playground at the beach

Oakland, California, USA Case Study

Lakeside Park: 224771927 224771927	Tagging notes
	The boundary boundary of Lakeside Park is tagged with `leisure=park`. Within Lakeside Park is Lake Merritt Lake Merritt, tagged with `natural=water`. Further within Lake Merritt is the Lark Merritt Bird Sanctuary Lark Merritt Bird Sanctuary, a collection of five islands kept as a bird habitat. The bird sanctuary is tagged with `boundary=protected_area`, `protect_class=4`, and `natural=wood`. This tagging reflects that the bird sanctuary is protected as a wildlife habitat with natural wooded ground cover. Both the lake and the the bird sanctuary are a part of Lakeside park, however, the public is not permitted access to the islands. This tag combination is a standard convention method for tagging mixed-use parks, however: The bird sanctuary islands are within the area tagged `leisure=park`, yet the islands are not manicured park land The area of the lake is tagged both `leisure=park` and `natural=water`, a conflicting tag combination which imply that the lake is both water and natural park land. It is only through the fact that the renderer has chosen to render the water rather than park tagging that we are able to see the lake.

This article is issued from Openstreetmap. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.