Currently for green space sites data we use OS (Ordnance Survey) Open Greenspace data here. This datum is quite rich and detailed, and has also access points to the sites, which we need for calculating the distances in the time travel matrix.
Though, the datum lacks some major sites, especially some parks in the suburbia. The integration with Openstreetmap (OSM) data was left aside, as it implied a major cleaning of not-relevant sites and lacks access points.
I have found this source we could use to integrate data of green space sites:
ORVal developed by the Land, Environment, Economics and Policy Institute (LEEP) at The University of Exeter.
ORVal reports values and visit estimates for existing and new greenspaces that are derived from a sophisticated model of recreational demand in England and Wales.
From a quick glance to their methodology, the data originates from OSM and other sources, which have been cleaned and merged with defined criteria.
The advantage of using the Parks layer, from the output data they produce, is that it covers some green areas that we are missing(see for example Chopwell Woodland in Tyne and Wear). This datum, like OSM, lacks the accesspoints, but we could maybe integrate this with their Paths layer to solve the issue.
On a side note, it could be worth it to check other sources they use, see for example 'Woods for people' from Woodland Trust.
Currently for green space sites data we use OS (Ordnance Survey) Open Greenspace data here. This datum is quite rich and detailed, and has also access points to the sites, which we need for calculating the distances in the time travel matrix. Though, the datum lacks some major sites, especially some parks in the suburbia. The integration with Openstreetmap (OSM) data was left aside, as it implied a major cleaning of not-relevant sites and lacks access points.
I have found this source we could use to integrate data of green space sites: ORVal developed by the Land, Environment, Economics and Policy Institute (LEEP) at The University of Exeter.
From a quick glance to their methodology, the data originates from OSM and other sources, which have been cleaned and merged with defined criteria. The advantage of using the Parks layer, from the output data they produce, is that it covers some green areas that we are missing(see for example Chopwell Woodland in Tyne and Wear). This datum, like OSM, lacks the accesspoints, but we could maybe integrate this with their Paths layer to solve the issue.
On a side note, it could be worth it to check other sources they use, see for example 'Woods for people' from Woodland Trust.