Users of parks generally know there will be varying usage rules for the park based on the park. But generally speaking, things that will destroy the "natural perserved" aspects, things that will disrupt other people using the park, aren't allowed.
And, like moderation, if you don't understand the context of what a park is in society, you should either go there with someone that does, ask the authorities in charge of the park, or DON'T GO.
So the answer to the question is "what activities are supported by the park, do you know other people that use those implements there without controversy".
You socially interact to know. If it is a grey area, ask either someone that may know, or the authorities.
This isn't Zeno's paradoxes. You aren't asking if the vehicle is every technically being used at the park because the atoms are repelled by the electromagnetic force and things never actually touch each other.
It isn't something that needs to be solved philosophically. There are people with authoritative knowledge, and you ask them the questions, and they give a "yes or no". And you either obey their judgement, or you break the rules.
If the AI (because this HAS to be about AI, why else is this dribble here) can't understand the context, it won't effectively moderate.
Given that there have been many cases of lawmakers not understanding the impact of their own laws. Contracts unraveled by punctuation errors, complex interactions between rules, people managing parks often not being the same as people writing the rules, ... . I find this claim to be completely removed from reality.
That is divorced from reality?
Do you NEVER ask people that "know things" a question? Or do you just trust ChatGPT for everything?