In Germany (and likely elsewhere as well), some parks differ significantly from typical public parks: they charge entrance fees, enforce opening hours, and offer attractions like restaurants, playgrounds, transportation systems (e.g., railways or cable cars), and scheduled events. Currently, OSM renders these the same as free public parks – as undifferentiated green areas – which can be misleading.
I queried fee-based parks in Berlin using:
[out:json][timeout:25];
{{geocodeArea:Berlin}}->.searchArea;
(
nwr["leisure"="park"]["fee"="yes"](area.searchArea);
nwr["leisure"="garden"]["fee"="yes"](area.searchArea);
);
out geom;
Notable results:
- Britzer Garten: narrow-gauge railway, restaurants, water playground, events (concerts, fireworks), animal enclosures
- Gärten der Welt: cable car, labyrinth, open-air theater, themed gardens
- Botanischer Garten: a botanical garden operated by a university
These resemble theme parks and zoos in structure and operation:
- gated access + entrance fees + opening hours
- attractions: transport systems (railways, cable cars), playgrounds, theaters
- amenities: restaurants, gift shops, events
- themed experiences: landscaped gardens (e.g., Chinese, Japanese) rather than fantasy/adventure or animals.
Other German examples (e.g., egapark Erfurt, Westfalenpark Dortmund, Grugapark Essen) follow this model, basically “zoos without animals” (though some include minor animal exhibits).
However, outside Berlin, the query doesn’t just match spaces like these, but also some community gardens with participation fees, which is why changing the rendering for that combination of tags might be problematic.
Per Wikipedia’s definition, a theme park is “a form of amusement park that bases its structures and attractions around a central theme.” Here, that theme could arguably be gardens/nature.
What are your thoughts? Would it make sense to add tourism=theme_park for parks like these?