Talk:Tag:leisure=nature reserve

nature_reserve to ways: waterways

There are rivers where fishing or swimming is forbidden or regulated. In this case we need to apply natural_reserve (class=14) to a way - and currently is just for areas.

This can be done with fishing=no or swimming=no. Let's not make up things like "class=14" when we have human-understandable tags for these situations. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Needs a picture

We need a good picture of "nature reserve". I found a good one here: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4915042 It's just a shame that Otterspool Park is not actually tagged as a nature reserve in our data (but I think perhaps it should be): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1663460#map=16/53.3651/-2.9255&layers=N

-- Harry Wood (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this image is better than the current one.--AgusQui (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Humans now not required?

I don't understand the need for the latest edit that made "the ability for people to visit and enjoy nature" NOT a necessary requirement for the use of this tag. "The leisure key is for places people go in their spare time..." This edit erodes the consistency of the leisure key. Having to link to a "Counterintuitive key names" page is evidence of not great key/tagging schema design. Why not help to evolve tagging under the "boundary=protected_area" scheme to cover areas that are not for human visitation? --TomPar (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

OSM Wiki is documenting how tags are actually used. Proposal process is for attempts to define new tags in controlled way or redefine/deprecate existing ones. Redefinition done in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:leisure%3Dnature_reserve&diff=2043584&oldid=2043530 was not based on discussion or on actual usage. And, as documented on Counterintuitive key names many tags are not following strict definition of keys, in general key definitions are in general not useful to understand meaning of tags. (also, @ZeLonewolf: as edit author) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I thought the wiki is for documenting recommended practice, not journalistically recording all instances of use. Should we not be striving for a more perfect data model? Consistency of definitions, inheritable properties from higher-level keys...these are all things that make the data model more intuitive and, coupled with very clear wiki documentation, will ultimately drive "actual use case". Else we get ontological nihilism and a very uneven dataset. I'm not saying this is easy...but I'm surprised suggesting that all tags under "leisure=*" should involve a human is semi-controversial. --TomPar (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It is tricky to distinguish between "this is tagging going against standard and wiki should advise against it, wiki is supposed to do this" and "this change would be wikifiddling that redefines tag despite actual use, wiki is not supposed to do this". But in this case it would be a definition change that would redefine at least 4% of usages as invalid, likely far more. Mateusz Konieczny (talk)

"but I'm surprised suggesting that all tags under "leisure=*" should involve a human is semi-controversial." - see standard tagging for canal areas and how natural=water is used if you want to be truly infuriated :( Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I interpret that ZeLonewolf better defined the nature_reserve use, indicating that it is for the enjoyment of humans, differentiating it from the protected_area. I understand this was discussed within the protected_area proposal. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Park_boundary AgusQui (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• "indicating that it is for the enjoyment of humans, differentiating it from the protected_area" - the problem is that such difference does not exist in actual usage of this tag, as far as I know (maybe it was discussed somewhere?) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: "key definitions are in general not useful to understand meaning of tags" -- I don't agree. In general, tag nomenclature IS a decent representation of what the tags mean, there are just a small number of edge cases (especially from the early days of OSM) where the meaning does not match the nomenclature. Regarding instances of leisure=nature_reserve where the public is not allowed, I count only 3674 instances where this tag is combined with access=private, protect_class=1a, or iucn_level=IA, indicating a nature reserve that disallows general public access. This is out of just over 100,000 usages of leisure=nature_reserve. I didn't realize that aligning leisure=nature_reserve with the plain meaning of leisure=* would be controversial, as the wording that I originally had is, by OP inspection above, valid 96.4% of the time. However, if there is really a segment of the user base that feels strongly about using this tag in a way contrary to the definition of leisure=*, then the status quo ante is fine and we'll address it properly in Proposed_features/Park_boundary. (@Stevea: as co-author) --ZeLonewolf (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

"the wording that I originally had is, by OP inspection above, valid 96.4% of the time" - if over 5% of tagging that is considered correct mismatches new definition then I would say that it is a poor definition Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

"I count only 3674 instances where this tag is combined with access=private, protect_class=1a, or iucn_level=IA, indicating a nature reserve that disallows general public access" - not that in many cases NR data comes from import and is private but it is not tagged (or it is indicated differently). Also, many natural reserves protect something that is of no interest at all to normal person and is not used as leisure activity location by anyone Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

"many natural reserves protect something that is of no interest at all to normal person and is not used as leisure activity location by anyone" Those cases should be like protected_area AgusQui (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

This uses were fitting definition documented for years and are widely used. Maybe it would be beneficial to retag them. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

leisure=nature reserve vs. boundary=protected_area

The relationship between boundary=protected_area and leisure_nature=reserve has still not really been clarified and the explanations differ depending on the language of the wiki page. In practice, both are often used together.

What is clear is that boundary=protected_area is more augmented and focuses on conservation because it follows the IUCN classification. I have now emphasized this better in the wiki. For this, boundary=protected_area would also have to be pushed more in the editors, for iD I have created a ticket to create a preset for it.

As already discussed above, it makes sense to use leisure_nature=reserve only for a qualitative key that emphasizes the pleasure (leisure=*) and the possibility of visiting, but this would then have to be discussed more broadly. --Roadrenner (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I have documented those at Synonymous tags#Nature reserves.
For the record, I consider leisure=nature_reserve as archaic, inappropriate and inflexible, and I would support deprecating it if it ever gets to a formal vote. Duja (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No, boundary=protected_area has been made a poor idea due to arbitrary and numbered protect_class=* extension. Even if iucn_level=* is used, there can be different interpretation on what counts. Eg when I check some examples, they are listed as "not reported" in the WDPA database, perhaps due to missing some requirements, being difficult to classify into one, or simply missing data. This means it is affected by judgement, and is not suitable as the main attribute.
boundary=national_park is well-established. boundary=protected_area conflicts with this. Specific boundary=* + iucn_level=* could be better, but this can still be argued as duplicate, as the iucn_level=* can be determined by boundary=national_park . Other possibilities eg Talk:Tag:boundary=national_park#inholdings entails a different specific use.
—— Kovposch (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

In the dated handbook, there are illustrations of some potential problems. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/44891 https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2012-102.pdf#page=31 (PDF text encoding is broken. Use Google Cache.)

Example 1: Island of Rum, Scotland
This island was originally bought by the government for its geological richness (category III?). It is now managed as a strict nature reserve with a strong research component (category Ia?), but is large enough and with so few roads to be considered as a wilderness (category Ib?) or even a protected ecosystem (category II?). Efforts to establish an independent community on part of the island around Kinloch Castle means that some people might argue that the developed and settled area is a protected landscape (category V?). Final decision (in this case by SNH in liaison with stakeholders) will depend on what is considered to be the primary purpose of the area.
Example 2: St Kilda archipelago, Scotland
It is not easy to assign a single category to the entire St Kilda archipelago (as the guidelines require) because the degree of protection and the degree of human impact varies between the isolated stacks and islands on one hand and the partly settled and visited main island of Hirta on the other. Most parts of the archipelago, being rarely visited, are remote and inaccessible and can reasonably be classified as category Ia or Ib. But the main island of Hirta, with its military installations and semi permanent workers on behalf of the military, make it difficult to categorise. And there are also some unknowns at present, such as: will the residents currently working for the military depart? do the limited number of people who stay overnight, or who visit on cruise ships, significantly affect the natural values of the island? While a case might well be made by SNH and NTS for category II status for Hirta, there are issues to be examined.
Example 3: Wytham Woods near Oxford, England
Wytham Woods near Oxford is a remarkable ancient woodland extending over 400 ha. It belongs to Oxford University and may well be the most researched woodland in the world (Charles Elton, the father of modern ecology, began studies here in the 1920s). Many organisations apart from the University undertake research here, mainly government bodies, the Environmental Change Network and other universities. Is it then a category Ia site? Or does the management practice of allowing (indeed welcoming) public access - albeit controlled by permit - conflict with this and indicate category IV?
— Box 5.1: Examples of the questions that can arise when categorising a Protected Area

There's a less old report later. A "Statement of Compliance" is only available for the common statuses. https://iucn-nc.uk/projects/putting-nature-on-the-map/
There are academic discussions of them.

We find that although 28% of UK land is reported by the UK government to be protected, only 11.4% of land area falls within protected areas designated primarily for nature conservation. Condition monitoring indicates that at most 43–51% of protected areas in the UK are currently in favourable condition, which suggests as little as 4.9% of UK land area may be effectively protected for nature. However, estimates of protected area coverage vary greatly depending on the types of protected areas considered ‘effectively protected’ as measured by management category and site condition. Taking the UK as an example of a country that has reportedly met the target, we suggest that global progress may have been overestimated, and that future targets and indicators need to focus on the quality as well as quantity of protected areas.
— Starnes et al, The extent and effectiveness of protected areas in the UK https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01745

"Effectively protected" is related to criteria. Eg a question can be framed as "Is the long-term nature conservation ensured through legal or other effective means?". https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/30018 https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/PAG-021.pdf#page=21
Users should not be expected make such detailed evaluations. Maybe only some countries have such official guidelines on what have been determined with an IUCN category. So even in boundary=protected_area , protection_title=* may be a higher priority, and more reliable, than iucn_level=* somehow determined.
—— Kovposch (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Kovposch: I was referring to the concept that protected areas worldwide are boundaries, similar to administrative ones, outlining well-defined multi-polygonal areas. While I agree that the numeric protect_class is an ill-conceived idea, there are still supplemental tags such as protection_title which can improve the overall semantics. What protected areas are definitively not are instances of leisure=*, describing "primarily places where people go in their spare time". Duja (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Then it can still be argued to be boundary=nature_reserve . Otherwise you have to replace boundary=national_park together. Another "new" alternative to boundary=protected_area is boundary=water_protection_area for protect_class=12 from Germany.
2. The suitability of leisure=* is not a strong argument, similar to leisure=stadium for professional sports vs spectators. The lede here has defined "In many of them the public is invited to visit in order to enjoy this". Tag:leisure=nature_reserve#Examples has unrestricted highway=footway inside, and is IUCN Cat IV officially. There are even amenity=bench drawn inside. https://www.protectedplanet.net/193796

—— Kovposch (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)