Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

Graeme Fitzpatrick
Not sure if this needs to be called an RFC, as it concerns existing tags only, although I am suggesting deprecating several?

Following on from discussion that came up during the Rescue Station proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Rescue_Stations

& https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-December/056605.html;

& as also previously discussed at

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037080.html,

I would like to suggest making some changes to the multiple existing Lifeguard pages.

Please see:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dlifeguard for my efforts so far at improving definitions & tagging guidelines.

As always, discussions welcome here or at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:emergency%3Dlifeguard

Thanks

Graeme

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

Andrew Harvey-3
One feature of the pre-existing scheme of emergency=lifeguard_base/lifeguard_tower/lifeguard_platform is it provides a bit of hierarchy so the higher level ones are more likely to have more resources compared to the lower ones.

Though in essence this page has been re-written to replace

current: emergency=lifeguard_base
new: emergency=lifeguard + building=lifeguard

current: emergency=lifeguard_tower
new: emergency=lifeguard + man_made=tower + tower:type=observation

current: emergency=lifeguard_platform
new: emergency=lifeguard + man_made=tower + tower:type=observation

So no distinction between tower and platform with the new tags?

I agree with adding man_made=tower + tower:type=observation but we should also be adding access=private to prevent people thinking these are public observation towers they can access.

building=lifeguard is tricky because most of the time these buildings are specifically designed and built as lifeguard towers, but do we need a new lifeguard value or would building=hut work (small basic shelter).

I don't think we should outright replace the lifeguard_base/lifeguard_tower/lifeguard_platform values unless you can show where they don't work well?

I've been using the established supervised=yes tag on a beach to indicate if it is patrolled, and while all patrolled beaches are supervised=yes, I guess this might not always be the case when the beach itself is supervised for rules etc, but these people don't conduct water rescues. So with that in mind I think it's okay to establish lifeguard=yes for patrolled beaches (where personnel are on hand to conduct water rescues of swimmers) and leave supervised=yes for the more general case of some officials monitoring the beach area itself who may or may not enter the water.

Though ideally you'd not use lifeguard=yes but instead lifeguard:conditional = yes @ (times) to indicate which times, days, months it is patrolled.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 15:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
Not sure if this needs to be called an RFC, as it concerns existing tags only, although I am suggesting deprecating several?

Following on from discussion that came up during the Rescue Station proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Rescue_Stations

& https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-December/056605.html;

& as also previously discussed at

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037080.html,

I would like to suggest making some changes to the multiple existing Lifeguard pages.

Please see:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dlifeguard for my efforts so far at improving definitions & tagging guidelines.

As always, discussions welcome here or at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:emergency%3Dlifeguard

Thanks

Graeme
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

Tagging mailing list



Jan 13, 2021, 10:54 by [hidden email]:
One feature of the pre-existing scheme of emergency=lifeguard_base/lifeguard_tower/lifeguard_platform is it provides a bit of hierarchy so the higher level ones are more likely to have more resources compared to the lower ones.

Though in essence this page has been re-written
Is this new tagging a proposal that is not actually used currently or is it describing
a tagging scheme that is clearly used and dominating?


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

Stefan Tauner
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 14:37:57 +1000
Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Not sure if this needs to be called an RFC, as it concerns existing tags
> only, although I am suggesting deprecating several?

The equivalent of
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aemergency%3Dlifeguard_platform is missing in the examples.
Maybe also like the towers but with shelter=no?
And maybe intermittent=yes ;) or we shouldn't tag them at all if they
are as mobile as I think they are...?

--
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

dieterdreist
When looking at the numbers, it may be interesting background to know there was some contention years ago with Bryan from iD about lifeguard tagging and related features and iD presets.

Cheers
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by Andrew Harvey-3

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 19:57, Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]> wrote:

So no distinction between tower and platform with the new tags?

I'd call both of the two examples I added, "towers"

A platform, I'd say is only one of these:
which is an elevated mobile chair, that gets located in a different spot each day, so therefore not a permanent feature.

I agree with adding man_made=tower + tower:type=observation but we should also be adding access=private to prevent people thinking these are public observation towers they can access.

Good point, thanks!

building=lifeguard is tricky because most of the time these buildings are specifically designed and built as lifeguard towers, but do we need a new lifeguard value or would building=hut work (small basic shelter).

It probably would, or even just building=yes, but it was pointed out during the proposal for military bases that we should tag them as building=military for people trying to see "How many xxx are there?", so I thought the same idea should apply?

I don't think we should outright replace the lifeguard_base/lifeguard_tower/lifeguard_platform values unless you can show where they don't work well?

I don't think it's that they don't work well, as that they're all pretty well duplicates of each other?

I've been using the established supervised=yes tag on a beach to indicate if it is patrolled, and while all patrolled beaches are supervised=yes, I guess this might not always be the case when the beach itself is supervised for rules etc, but these people don't conduct water rescues. So with that in mind I think it's okay to establish lifeguard=yes for patrolled beaches (where personnel are on hand to conduct water rescues of swimmers) and leave supervised=yes for the more general case of some officials monitoring the beach area itself who may or may not enter the water.

That would also work for the beach in general, together with the lifeguard tag to show just where they are, if they have a permanent spot.

Though ideally you'd not use lifeguard=yes but instead lifeguard:conditional = yes @ (times) to indicate which times, days, months it is patrolled.

Which is what I was trying to achieve through the opening_hours=Oct-Apr Sa-Su 06:00-17:00 - does that work?

Thanks

Graeme


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by Stefan Tauner



On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 20:18, Stefan Tauner <[hidden email]> wrote:
The equivalent of
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aemergency%3Dlifeguard_platform is missing in the examples.
Maybe also like the towers but with shelter=no?
And maybe intermittent=yes ;) or we shouldn't tag them at all if they
are as mobile as I think they are...?

As mentioned above, I consider a platform to be https://c8.alamy.com/comp/FW6BHR/daytona-beach-with-the-lifeguard-on-the-observation-platform-florida-FW6BHR.jpg, which is mobile, set up in a different spot each day, & not a permanent feature, so no, shouldn't be mapped under this tag.

It probably wouldn't hurt to include that as another example to say don't map these, though?

Thanks

Graeme


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by dieterdreist



On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 at 20:39, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
When looking at the numbers, it may be interesting background to know there was some contention years ago with Bryan from iD about lifeguard tagging and related features and iD presets.

That's partially why I included the link to that conversation! :-)

I was thinking about mentioning that when you map a "lifeguard" via iD, it defaults as emergency=lifeguard, but wasn't sure how?

Thanks

Graeme


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

Andrew Harvey-3
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick


On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 09:29, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
Though ideally you'd not use lifeguard=yes but instead lifeguard:conditional = yes @ (times) to indicate which times, days, months it is patrolled.

Which is what I was trying to achieve through the opening_hours=Oct-Apr Sa-Su 06:00-17:00 - does that work?

opening_hours is more when the beach is open to the public, so if signposted that the beach is closed during certain times you could use opening_hours, but if you can use the beach anytime, but only patrolled (by lifeguards) during certain hours then opening_hours is not right. 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

Stefan Tauner
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 20:30:07 +1100
Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 09:29, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Though ideally you'd not use lifeguard=yes but instead  
> >> lifeguard:conditional = yes @ (times) to indicate which times, days, months
> >> it is patrolled.
> >>  
> >
> > Which is what I was trying to achieve through the opening_hours=Oct-Apr
> > Sa-Su 06:00-17:00 - does that work?
> >  
>
> opening_hours is more when the beach is open to the public, so if
> signposted that the beach is closed during certain times you could use
> opening_hours, but if you can use the beach anytime, but only patrolled (by
> lifeguards) during certain hours then opening_hours is not right.

Another alternative would be opening_hours:lifeguard=*
There are some hundreds similar instances in the database like opening_hours:drive_through,
opening_hours:office, opening_hours:reception

--
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Andrew Harvey-3
Am Do., 14. Jan. 2021 um 10:32 Uhr schrieb Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]>:
Which is what I was trying to achieve through the opening_hours=Oct-Apr Sa-Su 06:00-17:00 - does that work?

opening_hours is more when the beach is open to the public, so if signposted that the beach is closed during certain times you could use opening_hours, but if you can use the beach anytime, but only patrolled (by lifeguards) during certain hours then opening_hours is not right. 


+1, maybe lifeguard:service_times=* would be more appropriate?

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

Graeme Fitzpatrick

On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 19:51, Stefan Tauner <[hidden email]> wrote:

Another alternative would be opening_hours:lifeguard=*
 
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 20:05, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Am Do., 14. Jan. 2021 um 10:32 Uhr schrieb Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]>:
opening_hours is more when the beach is open to the public, so if signposted that the beach is closed during certain times you could use opening_hours, but if you can use the beach anytime, but only patrolled (by lifeguards) during certain hours then opening_hours is not right. 


+1, maybe lifeguard:service_times=* would be more appropriate?

 
But with opening_hours= being listed under the lifeguard tag only, not the beach tag itself, would there be any confusion?

Thanks

Graeme


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

Andrew Harvey-3
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 11:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
But with opening_hours= being listed under the lifeguard tag only, not the beach tag itself, would there be any confusion?

You could, I'd still also tag it on the beach otherwise you need a way to link the lifeguard service to specific beaches (eg as a data consumer if I want to show which beaches are patrolled now).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=beach#How_to_map recommends to use supervised for beaches with a lifeguard service, so before we change anything it would be good to hear if anyone is actually using supervised on beaches to mean something else apart from patrolled by lifeguards. 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

Graeme Fitzpatrick



On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 12:14, Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 11:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
But with opening_hours= being listed under the lifeguard tag only, not the beach tag itself, would there be any confusion?

You could, I'd still also tag it on the beach otherwise you need a way to link the lifeguard service to specific beaches (eg as a data consumer if I want to show which beaches are patrolled now).

Fair enough.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=beach#How_to_map recommends to use supervised for beaches with a lifeguard service, so before we change anything it would be good to hear if anyone is actually using supervised on beaches to mean something else apart from patrolled by lifeguards. 

I'll openly admit that I'm not that great on TagInfo, but searching supervised, then looking for a combination with beach shows only 2 uses:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=supervised#combinations, & nothing for natural=beach, although there are 1800+ "natural" - I don't know how to drill down further into them though?

Trying supervised=yes, https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/supervised=yes#combinations, seems to indicate that it is mostly used for parking, access & similar, with nothing shown for natural / beach.

Thanks

Graeme


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

Joseph Eisenberg
You want to use overpass-turbo for this sort of search, using the "count" feature:


[out:csv(::count)][timeout:25];
(
  nwr["natural"="beach"]["supervised"="yes"];
);
out count;

The count finds 461 nodes, ways and relations with natural=beach + supervised=yes

If you want to see them all, change back to json: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/12pa (warning, 2 mb of data)
- This shows there are 445 areas and 15 nodes

And 89 of those have opening_hours=* too, compared to 420 total natural=beach features with opening_hours.

Not a very large number compared to the 137k natural=beach features and 8k leisure=beach_resort

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 7:04 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 12:14, Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 11:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
But with opening_hours= being listed under the lifeguard tag only, not the beach tag itself, would there be any confusion?

You could, I'd still also tag it on the beach otherwise you need a way to link the lifeguard service to specific beaches (eg as a data consumer if I want to show which beaches are patrolled now).

Fair enough.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=beach#How_to_map recommends to use supervised for beaches with a lifeguard service, so before we change anything it would be good to hear if anyone is actually using supervised on beaches to mean something else apart from patrolled by lifeguards. 

I'll openly admit that I'm not that great on TagInfo, but searching supervised, then looking for a combination with beach shows only 2 uses:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=supervised#combinations, & nothing for natural=beach, although there are 1800+ "natural" - I don't know how to drill down further into them though?

Trying supervised=yes, https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/supervised=yes#combinations, seems to indicate that it is mostly used for parking, access & similar, with nothing shown for natural / beach.

Thanks

Graeme

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

Graeme Fitzpatrick

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 13:49, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

The count finds 461 nodes, ways and relations with natural=beach + supervised=yes

If you want to see them all, change back to json: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/12pa (warning, 2 mb of data)
- This shows there are 445 areas and 15 nodes

Thanks, Joseph!

Running out of time today, as we have family coming for dinner in ~2 hours, but I'll have a scan of them tomorrow.

Thanks

Graeme


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion & possible deprecation of various Lifeguard tags

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by Andrew Harvey-3




On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 12:14, Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]> wrote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=beach#How_to_map recommends to use supervised for beaches with a lifeguard service, so before we change anything it would be good to hear if anyone is actually using supervised on beaches to mean something else apart from patrolled by lifeguards. 

Very hard to tell?

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/12qR says that there are 89 "supervised beaches with opening hours" but there aren't many details.

eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27492072#map=15/53.9883/11.2199 says it's open 24/7, There is a DLRG Station https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/497903924 but I can't find any reference to it's operating hours, not even by the linked website.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230248985 has opening_hours 10:00 - 18:00 & there is a Ranger Station at the back of the beach https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230248935. But do Rangers act as lifeguards? According to Mr G, the State Park itself is open 7-7, & there are a few comments about Rangers, but they only mention "Lots of Ranger security" & "Rangers collect the camping fees"

Searching https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700711724 gets https://www.loirevalley-france.co.uk/organise-your-stay/activities/water/baignade-au-plan-deau-de-la-barbotine which says "Supervised beach", although part of https://www.osezmauges.fr/piscines/LOIPDL049V50213E-6/detail/montrevault-sur-evre/baignade-au-plan-d-eau-de-la-barbotine translates to " Swimming authorized only in the presence of bathing supervisors during the summer period from July 10 to August 31, 2020 (no supervision on Mondays):  - from Tuesday to Saturday from 2.15 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. - Sunday from 2.15 p.m. to 8.00 p.m."

Also says " Access to the beach and swimming prohibited for children under 8 years old unaccompanied by an adult" which would be a whole different can of worms to get into!

Thanks

Graeme


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging