That’s a good point, maybe they like to play on the mowers! I can’t imagine why, so noisy, dusty and smelly and destroying lovely habitat for a living but each to their own. I miss the times during covid when they stopped mowing - wish we could do that again, or give more weight to the majority who like wildlife and wildflowers than the few who complain that long grass is untidy! I think parks benefit massively from a mix of short and long grass areas as kids can play football etc on the shorter stuff and then spot butterflies and other insects in the wildflower areas
Anyway I had tried to edit my post to be more linked to the original topic of pocket parks as well but wasn’t able to!! I have submitted a pocket park in France and found it easily accepted. I think reviewers and appeals team alike prefer obvious man made structures like hardstanding, benches, pergolas, play equipment and signs, so mine was approved while other areas with less are not.
@salixsorbus Please, do tell me the meaning of words. That is very helpful with the dialogue. The city planners (experts) designed (curated) the greens to improve the area for residents. The council over the years have continued that original vision where it’s not been more expidient to create wild areas.
As previously stated, many UK school yards have nothing but mown grass and trees with no play equipment, but we don’t insist that it’s not a play area. I’m not suggesting that we sub school yards. Just pointing out that green spaces are intended for recreational purposes, even those in elderly housing estates. Equating them with playing in the road is “insert your choice here.” Many parks in the UK are large green areas with just a small play area. Do the parks stop outside the play area? Are we suggesting that recreational spaces can only be what we like?
Thank you @cyndiepooh I was looking for that.
Agreed @TjoeMi Thank you for taking the time to have a look. I agree that the ownus(sp?) is on me to prove anything outside of Google Maps images. Google Maps images are flawed because they are only a short image of time. Very few things, like human activity, can be planned for when the satellite/car(now defunct) comes by to take a new image.
You keep stating this but a quick look at the local primary school shows different.
That is your interpretation. Most here have stated that just because it can be used for recreational purposes does not mean that was what it is intended for.
I already did above when stated “My comment was an extreme example that areas that “can be played on” and “made to play on” are 2 separate things.“
Again, your interpretation. The local “village” park has the fenced play area, football pitch (with goals) and outdoor exercise equipment. It also has an official name and signs.
1 local primary school is not the same as Many. But let’s do this your way. Here are 4 local schools. With no play equipment in them. They also have no children in the images. So the kids must never play there therefore aren’t play areas by your definition. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There have been 2 people who have said that. I am allowed to disagree.
It’s what some people are saying by equating park with play area/play equipment. I am pointing out the error in that statement . Below we see a park with an enclosed play area and large green space, in the UK. It’s erroneous to say that the park is only the play area. Or that visitors to a park only go to a play area.
There’s a specific word for this sort of fallacy, but I forget what it is. No-one is saying that play can only take place in a play area or with play equipment etc. Not me, not @SlimboyFat71, not anyone else on this thread (or other threads).
As to city planners being experts, they might be experts at urban planning, but it is well known in some circles that they are not experts at landscape design, which is about the design and use of the spaces in-between buildings. Unfortunately, urban planning is mostly focused on architecture because buildings are considered high value and the spaces in-between them are incidental and not given much thought.
This is why you get random green spaces in urban landscapes that the urban planner didn’t know what to do with - they focused on the buildings. Unfortunately, what we (the residents) get are random green spaces that have no purpose, no facilities and don’t present any positive way of interacting with them.
This is often not the case. They are there to be looked at, to be surrounded by, to provide greenery, but there is no intention for them to be actually used. They can be used of course, but this isn’t the /intention/.
This is similar to supported living and care institutions which have lovely grounds, but where hardly anyone goes in them, because the point isn’t to physically interact with them, but for them to exist. (This isn’t true for all such developments.)
We seem to have strayed away from what I thought this was about 
Yes its really silly hot weather today, but can we move away from semantics over park v play area?
It’s going round in circles.
Ok my thoughts
A reminder this is the text from the criteria clarification
Parks are great places to explore, exercise and socialize. A nomination can be made for a park even if a park does not have a physical sign but is clearly a park. If there is an obvious entrance or focal point, that would be a good location to place the pin, but equally the middle of the park may be suitable. The supporting photo and text should provide evidence that the location is intended to be used as a park or recreational area.
So it doesn’t define a park and I think that is ok. As the discussion above as shown it is not necessarily helpful to focus on specific elements. It doesn’t mention green, or play area or common - all words that in the U.K. could be considered a park.
Being a place for exploration, exercise or socialisation is what makes a park eligible, presenting it as to how it meets the criteria can then make it acceptable.
A pocket park is meant to be a small outdoor space - bringing nature into little corners of a concrete jungle. Not a place for games.
Different ages of housing will include different types of open public space.
Some are easier than others fencing and signage make things easier.
A green landscaped space that has places to stop and enjoy it as a space are elements I would look to be demonstrated.
A green cut through between 2 roads is not that space.
[I tried to edit a post to correct the use of the word “unfortunately” twice, but the text appears to have disappeared. At least, it’s gone from my screen even after reloading. I am repeating the post above, which may be a repeat or may not be. This should have appeared just above the post from @elijustrying about the silly hot weather today.]
There’s a specific word for this sort of fallacy, but I forget what it is. No-one is saying that play can only take place in a play area or with play equipment etc. Not me, not @SlimboyFat71, not anyone else on this thread (or other threads).
As to city planners being experts, they might be experts at urban planning, but it is well known in some circles that they are not experts at landscape design, which is about the design and use of the spaces in-between buildings. Unfortunately, urban planning is mostly focused on architecture because buildings are considered high value and the spaces in-between them are incidental and not given much thought.
This is why you get random green spaces in urban landscapes that the urban planner didn’t know what to do with - they focused on the buildings. As a result, what we (the residents) get are random green spaces that have no purpose, no facilities and don’t present any positive way of interacting with them.
This is often not the case. They are there to be looked at, to be surrounded by, to provide greenery, but there is no intention for them to be actually used. They can be used of course, but this isn’t the /intention/.
This is similar to supported living and care institutions which have lovely grounds, but where hardly anyone goes in them, because the point isn’t to physically interact with them, but for them to exist. (This isn’t true for all such developments.)
This lovely discussion — and especially the “play equipment” question — reminds me of a certain game that can be played without any installed play equipment. Not a ball game (those are conveniently not allowed), but okay, no one would guess anyway: Minecraft Earth Badminton, starting at 7:10 in the video below.
A general reminder that this topic is titled Pocket Parks.
Can we stay on topic please as it seems to have gone in a different direction that is not directly relevant.
Thanks
Edit to add:
The off topic discussion about number of people to make a great place social is now in a separate topic. Please feel free to continue discussions in the appropriate topics.
Thanks again
