text: " if I can or do enter the area and recreate (hike, contemplate, enjoy the pretty trees and sound of the creek...), I have just treated the area "like" a park. "As if" it IS a park."
  
  Ah ha. See, that's the issue. Your using a subjective interpretation of the tag. When the definition is clearly objective. Notice the wiki says "A park is an area of open space for recreational use." In other words, a park is an "open space" used "for recreation." The "open space" coming first in the sentence is the important thing there. Whereas, "recreation" is second. Otherwise, recreation would become the defining thing of a park and I'm pretty sure the people who created the tag knew that it would be to broad and subjective a description without a descriptive caveat added to it. So while you might be able to shimmy between the fence and dense under brush, to go find a bush to "recreational" sit under, it's not an open space. I know a few people who enjoy lounging around in trash bins behind fast food restaurants. They don't get tagged as parks because they are subjectively "recreational" places. Anywhere could be. There has to objective clauses to tagging. Otherwise, it could apply to anything and there's be a bunch of arguing. 
  
  Also, notice in the wiki it says "this tag is intended for urban parks with managed greenery." In no way is the dense forest area here "managed greenery." Whatever you might be think about your ability to take a nap there. There your still also making an assumption about the ability to hike etc. Since you haven't actually been down the path. It could just as easily end at the peoples fence line and you might get the cops called on you for trespassing. You really don't know. Everything your saying is based on unfounded assumptions. Whereas, I'm going by what's clear in the photos and what the wiki says. 
  
  If you don't like the wiki definition of an open space with managed greenery, consult the community,  "build consensus," "do more listening," 
  
   