Include buffer rings around Non-PARD parks

[mateoclarke]

For the primary heatmap, non-PARD parks should have buffer rings symbolizing access drawn around them.

These parks are currently a slightly different shade of green than PARD park. Should they be a more distinct color?

[kyoder]

Just to verify --- The files: land-use-2012-all.geojson and osm-parks-filtered.geojson should be added to the city's park dataset as the basis for our proximity analysis?

Since we do not have information about the Non-Pard parks amenities, I'm thinking it might be better to make a bigger distinction between the two, especially when we are only including developed parks in our base dataset from the city.

[mateoclarke]

Yes to OSM. I haven't opened up the land-use-2012 file yet. If it's not too much trouble, could you make a heatmap with and also without the land-use-2012 data? If it is too much trouble, do it without.

I'm just worried we won't know enough about the parks that show up from that data and that parks of greater significance would already be showing up in OSM or PARD.

Agree with you about stronger distinction.

[kyoder]

Here is a breakdown of the number of parcels within each Park Land Use type:

Common Areas - 2820
Park or Greenbelt - 1584
Preserve - 725
Golf Course - 69
Camp Ground - 1

I know John expressed hesitation about us using this dataset so it might be better to not include it. I will look into the layer in more detail though...and remove the parcels that overlap with our existing data and see what that leaves us.

[wilsaj]

If you want to just look it over real quick, github renders geojson as a map: https://github.com/open-austin/Austin_Parks_Equity/blob/master/data/land-use-2012-all.geojson

FWIW, I'm not too impressed with the data - you won't hurt my feelings if you don't want to include it