text: "Nope, there is not "zero evidence:"
  
  I meant zero evidence as far as "evidence its a park by OSM's standards of what makes a park a park. I.E. path's, benches, restrooms, places people can partake of leisure activities etc etc. Even having those things don't automatically make things park either. There's plenty of grassy areas where I live and all over California where there's paths, sometimes put there by cities, that aren't parks. Mostly to allow people "pass through's" of the area if need be or access to power polls. So it's more nuanced then that. There's zero evidence its a park in that respect. I'm also pretty sure that the house and water tower to the north that's clearly visible and is someones yard, isn't a park. Neither is the a few other residential areas the park is mapped over south west of here. 
  
  Given the already inaccurate mapping of this meadow as a park over those things, and the fact that you ignored them your equation of this and saying I was about it not being a park, my tendency is to think this probably isn't a park in the first and is just mapped wrong. 
  
  As I've said before, county GIS places do make mistakes sometimes and they also don't classify things based on the same principles OSM does. You can look all over California for the many mistakes government mappers make. It's pretty obvious.  So again, it's more nuanced then "it's on some obscure government GIS site. So it's correct."  As I've also said before, I have no problem going with them to double check something that is already confirmed through other more reliable means like a web search, government parks department website (which can still be wrong like that one park by the ocean), Street View, or even better satellite photos. If something is a park it should be pretty obvious in the satellite photos in my opinion. But government GIS data should never be primary or the only metric. That's why OSM regulates imports so much. 