text: have the wiki changed, blah blah blah. That's what you said everyone else should do. Follow your own standards. 
  
  "nowhere in leisure=park's wiki do we say "amenities are required in a park")."
  
  I never said it did. I said it's a good indicator to by with the satellite photos etc to tell if somewhere is a park or not. Your the one that brought up in a few other places that they are parks because eventually there will be bathrooms there, or like the parking lot with a restroom. So when it suits you are good indicators, when it doesn't. Just be consistent about it. Either they are or they aren't. Your the one that said they were. 
  
  "You might feel that this is the same as your annoyance with "people's lawns being defined as parks," (which I am annoyed with, too, as it's wrong). 
  
  They are only comparable as far as both involve mapping based on the mappers subjective experience. As I said above, your the one projecting "parkness" on to it. Like people do with their lawns. You said so yourself that its classified as a protected area. Which there's already another tag for. So it's your interpretation of the place. It's also your interpretation that it fits the tag despite not being open or not having managed greenery. I'm 100% fine with it being tagged as park later on when it is tough. I'm not disputing that your annoyed by lawn park mapping either. I just think your willing to make exceptions when it suites you. 
  
  "However, "people's lawns" are private property,""
  
  Some parks are private also. I'm not sure what that has to do with it. 
  
  " didn't say it is under development (like with backhoes and construction crews), I meant in the sense of "as public land, in the jurisdiction in the county parks department as a protected area which may someday be a park with improvements")."
  
  I'll just say this, in Nevada 87.8% of land is "public land." in California it's 52.1%. In AZ it's 56.8%. Oregon 60.4%. Washington's a little smaller with 41.9% public land. 
  
  