Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Joseph Eisenberg
The current wiki page for tourism=attraction states:

"A general tourist attraction. This tag may be added to object to
indicate that the place is interesting for tourists. Note that tagging
just tourism = attraction is not enough - this tag should be used only
as addition to main tag describing the feature."
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism=attraction

This is reasonable; many features can be of interest to tourists, and
tourism=attraction doesn't provide much information. Is it an area of
shops? A beach? A theme park? A historic monument?

However, there is a preset in the JOSM editor that allows
tourism=attraction to be used as the top-level tag.

Is it necessary to use tourism=attraction as the only tag for certain features?

(Currently, tourism=attraction alone is rendered only as a name label
on the Openstreetmap-carto style, without an border, area colour or
icon. Either we need to add an icon or outline, or we can remove this
from the list of rendered features. If the wiki is correct then it can
be removed, because properly-tagged features should have another, more
specific tag that can be rendered)

-Joseph

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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Christoph Hormann-2
On Wednesday 05 December 2018, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

> [...]
>
> This is reasonable; many features can be of interest to tourists, and
> tourism=attraction doesn't provide much information. Is it an area of
> shops? A beach? A theme park? A historic monument?
>
> However, there is a preset in the JOSM editor that allows
> tourism=attraction to be used as the top-level tag.
>
> Is it necessary to use tourism=attraction as the only tag for certain
> features?

Well - the main problem with tourism=attraction is that it has no
consistent application hence no real meaning as a tag so you can't
really say if it is a standalone tag or not.

What you can say is that:

* it is widely used as the only characterizing tag of a feature (usually
just tourism=attraction + name).
* it is not a verifiable tag in either variant, the closest you could
interpret it to mean is indicating some kind of wikipedia-like
notability.
* it is often used as a 'lazy tag' - i.e. used by mappers who did not
want to look for or to invent a more meaningful characterization.

> (Currently, tourism=attraction alone is rendered only as a name label
> on the Openstreetmap-carto style, without an border, area colour or
> icon. Either we need to add an icon or outline, or we can remove this
> from the list of rendered features. If the wiki is correct then it
> can be removed, because properly-tagged features should have another,
> more specific tag that can be rendered)


It would certainly be good to stop rendering it to incentivize mappers
to choose more meaningful tags instead but it also should be said that
this is essentially a case of 'damage done' - the tag is already
meaningless, stopping to render it would help better tagging in the
future, it would not in any way add meaning to the tag as it is already
used.

We have however many other tags where OSM-Carto recently added or
changed rendering in ways that provide mapping incentives agaist the
established meaning of the tags.  This and the resulting dilution of
existing value and precision in OSM data is going to be a much bigger
problem.  

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Daniel Koć
W dniu 05.12.2018 o 11:40, Christoph Hormann pisze:
> It would certainly be good to stop rendering it to incentivize mappers
> to choose more meaningful tags instead but it also should be said that
> this is essentially a case of 'damage done' - the tag is already
> meaningless, stopping to render it would help better tagging in the
> future, it would not in any way add meaning to the tag as it is already
> used.


While I agree with your description of attraction tag, I am not sure if
this would help. If this is tagging for rendering, you can render more
features, so cheating would not be needed (and we do it at OSM Carto),
but stopping to render it might as well make people abuse other tags.

People are not that simple, imposing something is not a sure way of
reaching some goal, it can easily backfire.


> We have however many other tags where OSM-Carto recently added or
> changed rendering in ways that provide mapping incentives agaist the
> established meaning of the tags.


I'm not sure what are you talking about (most probably I just don't
share your point of view), but I don't remember such cases.


--
"Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]



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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Joseph Eisenberg
Does anyone have a specific example of a place that should be tagged tourism=attraction but which cannot also be tagged with another feature?
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 9:55 PM Daniel Koć <[hidden email]> wrote:
W dniu 05.12.2018 o 11:40, Christoph Hormann pisze:
> It would certainly be good to stop rendering it to incentivize mappers
> to choose more meaningful tags instead but it also should be said that
> this is essentially a case of 'damage done' - the tag is already
> meaningless, stopping to render it would help better tagging in the
> future, it would not in any way add meaning to the tag as it is already
> used.


While I agree with your description of attraction tag, I am not sure if
this would help. If this is tagging for rendering, you can render more
features, so cheating would not be needed (and we do it at OSM Carto),
but stopping to render it might as well make people abuse other tags.

People are not that simple, imposing something is not a sure way of
reaching some goal, it can easily backfire.


> We have however many other tags where OSM-Carto recently added or
> changed rendering in ways that provide mapping incentives agaist the
> established meaning of the tags.


I'm not sure what are you talking about (most probably I just don't
share your point of view), but I don't remember such cases.


--
"Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]



_______________________________________________
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: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

dieterdreist


Am Mi., 5. Dez. 2018 um 14:32 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]>:
Does anyone have a specific example of a place that should be tagged tourism=attraction but which cannot also be tagged with another feature?


do you mean, it is impossible to invent a tag for it which better describes its nature, or that nobody has yet invented and documented such a tag?

Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Joseph Eisenberg

do you mean, 1) it is impossible to invent a tag for it which better describes its nature, or 2) that nobody has yet invented and documented such a tag?

1) is probably not possible
2) would be good
I’m just not able to think of any examples.



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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Graeme Fitzpatrick


On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 10:57, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

do you mean, 1) it is impossible to invent a tag for it which better describes its nature, or 2) that nobody has yet invented and documented such a tag?

1) is probably not possible
2) would be good
I’m just not able to think of any examples.

I have seen spots on the map that have only been tagged as tourism=attraction, but every one I've looked at has been able to have an extra tag added (which then also changes the rendered icon)

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Mark Wagner
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:55:11 +0900
Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > do you mean, 1) it is impossible to invent a tag for it which better
> > describes its nature, or 2) that nobody has yet invented and
> > documented such a tag?
> >  
>
> 1) is probably not possible
> 2) would be good
> I’m just not able to think of any examples.

Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair few bare
"tourism=attraction" objects.  How would you tag the following:

* Boiling River and Firehole Swimming Area, naturally-heated stretches
  of river that are popular for swimming.

* Petrified Tree, a large, petrified section of tree trunk.

* Soda Butte, the rock formation left behind by a long-extinct geyser.

* Norris Geyser Basin, Upper Geyser Basin, Artist Paint Pots, Fountain
  Paint Pots, and other named groups of thermal features.

* Roaring Mountain, a hillside that contains a large number of steam
  vents.

All of these are well-known, named places in the park, and any
reasonable park map needs to include them. Upper Geyser Basin in
particular is the main reason people come to the park (it's the one
that contains Old Faithful).

--
Mark

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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Yves-2
tourism=attraction can be added to a lot of features indeed, that's why I think the label rendering in OSM-carto is a good idea because you will probably never find a common rendering to encompass this variety.

But on another topic, where does the idea of 'primary' and 'secondary' tags I read here and there and more and more often comes from? Are we making a map of the world in its complexity or what?
Yves
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Christoph Hormann-2
On Thursday 06 December 2018, Yves wrote:
> tourism=attraction can be added to a lot of features indeed, that's
> why I think the label rendering in OSM-carto is a good idea because
> you will probably never find a common rendering to encompass this
> variety.

Your desire for this is somewhat understandable - but this clashes with
the current documented goals of OSM-Carto and the aim of OSM to map the
verifiable geography and not subjective opinions.

> But on another topic, where does the idea of 'primary' and
> 'secondary' tags I read here and there and more and more often comes
> from? Are we making a map of the world in its complexity or what?
> Yves

Secondary tags refers to tags that have no distinct meaning on their
own.  Think of a feature that has an 'access=no' tag or
an 'intermittent=yes' tag and no other tags - these do not make any
sense on their own, the only get meaning together with other tags (like
a highway or waterway tag in these cases).

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Daniel Koć
W dniu 06.12.2018 o 10:47, Christoph Hormann pisze:
> On Thursday 06 December 2018, Yves wrote:
>> tourism=attraction can be added to a lot of features indeed, that's
>> why I think the label rendering in OSM-carto is a good idea because
>> you will probably never find a common rendering to encompass this
>> variety.
> Your desire for this is somewhat understandable - but this clashes with
> the current documented goals of OSM-Carto and the aim of OSM to map the
> verifiable geography and not subjective opinions.


The desire to make everything objective and measurable is also clear,
but it's also not a hard requirement. Both documented goals of OSM Carto
and verifiability rule are written to suggest some actions and guide
people, but not to rule out everything else. Which is good, because
there are many hard to verify objects (like country borders or highway
types) and other goals which are not explicitly written.


>> But on another topic, where does the idea of 'primary' and
>> 'secondary' tags I read here and there and more and more often comes
>> from? Are we making a map of the world in its complexity or what?
>> Yves
> Secondary tags refers to tags that have no distinct meaning on their
> own.  Think of a feature that has an 'access=no' tag or


Only some of them. There are also secondary tags which are perfectly
clear and the only reason they are secondary is that documentation
requires using something else with them, for example:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:memorial


--
"Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]



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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

ebel
In reply to this post by Mark Wagner
On 06/12/2018 08:38, Mark Wagner wrote:
> Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair few bare
> "tourism=attraction" objects.  How would you tag the following:
>
> * Boiling River and Firehole Swimming Area, naturally-heated stretches
>    of river that are popular for swimming.

natural=water + leisure=swimming_area ? natural=water + sport=swimming ?

> * Petrified Tree, a large, petrified section of tree trunk.

natural=tree? natural=petrified_tree ?

> * Soda Butte, the rock formation left behind by a long-extinct geyser.

natural=rock ? natural=rock_formation ?

> * Norris Geyser Basin, Upper Geyser Basin, Artist Paint Pots, Fountain
>    Paint Pots, and other named groups of thermal features.

natural=geyser ?

> * Roaring Mountain, a hillside that contains a large number of steam
>    vents.

place=locality ? natural=peak ? natural=hill ?


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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Mark Wagner
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100
Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 06/12/2018 08:38, Mark Wagner wrote:
> > Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair few bare
> > "tourism=attraction" objects.  How would you tag the following:
> >
> > * Boiling River and Firehole Swimming Area, naturally-heated
> > stretches of river that are popular for swimming.  
>
> natural=water + leisure=swimming_area ? natural=water +
> sport=swimming ?

Seems reasonable.
 
> > * Petrified Tree, a large, petrified section of tree trunk.  
>
> natural=tree? natural=petrified_tree ?

"Tree" is misleading.  "natural=petrified_tree" would be good, except
it gets zero hits in TagInfo.

> > * Soda Butte, the rock formation left behind by a long-extinct
> > geyser.  
>
> natural=rock ? natural=rock_formation ?

"natural=rock" looks good.

> > * Norris Geyser Basin, Upper Geyser Basin, Artist Paint Pots,
> > Fountain Paint Pots, and other named groups of thermal features.  
>
> natural=geyser ?

"natural=geyser" is already in use for geysers.  Applying it to entire
geyser basins would be like using the same tag for both single trees
and forests.  (It would also be inaccurate, since these basins usually
contain a mix of geysers, fumaroles, hot springs, and occasionally mud
pots.)

> > * Roaring Mountain, a hillside that contains a large number of steam
> >    vents.  
>
> place=locality ? natural=peak ? natural=hill ?

"locality" might work, but it's even more generic than "tourist
attraction".  "Peak" or "hill" don't work -- the summit is almost a mile
to the southwest of the actual point of interest.

--
Mark

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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Warin
On 07/12/18 06:49, Mark Wagner wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100
> Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 06/12/2018 08:38, Mark Wagner wrote:
>>> Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair few bare
>>> "tourism=attraction" objects.  How would you tag the following:
>>>
>>> * Boiling River and Firehole Swimming Area, naturally-heated
>>> stretches of river that are popular for swimming.
>> natural=water + leisure=swimming_area ? natural=water +
>> sport=swimming ?
> Seems reasonable.

  Except for sport. Sport implies competition, are there marked lanes for this competition? I'd think not. So I would leave sport out of it.

>  
>>> * Petrified Tree, a large, petrified section of tree trunk.
>> natural=tree? natural=petrified_tree ?
> "Tree" is misleading.  "natural=petrified_tree" would be good, except
> it gets zero hits in TagInfo.

petrified gets a hits in taginfo... natural=petrified_forest

Possibly tag as
natural=tree, tree=petrified

or
natural=tree, petrified=yes

There are a few names with petrified in them.



>
>>> * Soda Butte, the rock formation left behind by a long-extinct
>>> geyser.
>> natural=rock ? natural=rock_formation ?
> "natural=rock" looks good.
>
>>> * Norris Geyser Basin, Upper Geyser Basin, Artist Paint Pots,
>>> Fountain Paint Pots, and other named groups of thermal features.
>> natural=geyser ?
> "natural=geyser" is already in use for geysers.  Applying it to entire
> geyser basins would be like using the same tag for both single trees
> and forests.  (It would also be inaccurate, since these basins usually
> contain a mix of geysers, fumaroles, hot springs, and occasionally mud
> pots.)
>
>>> * Roaring Mountain, a hillside that contains a large number of steam
>>>     vents.
>> place=locality ? natural=peak ? natural=hill ?
> "locality" might work, but it's even more generic than "tourist
> attraction".  "Peak" or "hill" don't work -- the summit is almost a mile
> to the southwest of the actual point of interest.
>
I'd add description=hill side


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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Mark Wagner

6. Dec 2018 20:49 by [hidden email]:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100
Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 06/12/2018 08:38, Mark Wagner wrote:
> Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair few bare
> * Petrified Tree, a large, petrified section of tree trunk.

natural=tree? natural=petrified_tree ?

"Tree" is misleading. "natural=petrified_tree" would be good, except
it gets zero hits in TagInfo.


It is perfectly fine to use tag fo the first time. Happens fairly often to me

during cleanup of bare tourism=attraction.


> * Norris Geyser Basin, Upper Geyser Basin, Artist Paint Pots,
> Fountain Paint Pots, and other named groups of thermal features.

natural=geyser ?

"natural=geyser" is already in use for geysers. Applying it to entire
geyser basins would be like using the same tag for both single trees
and forests. (It would also be inaccurate, since these basins usually
contain a mix of geysers, fumaroles, hot springs, and occasionally mud
pots.)

natural=geyser_basin?

> * Roaring Mountain, a hillside that contains a large number of steam
> vents.

place=locality ? natural=peak ? natural=hill ?

"locality" might work, but it's even more generic than "tourist
attraction". "Peak" or "hill" don't work -- the summit is almost a mile
to the southwest of the actual point of interest.

natural=geothermal_area (????)


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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg

5 Dec 2018, 07:29 by [hidden email]:
Is it necessary to use tourism=attraction as the only tag for certain features?
No, it is never, ever OK. And JOSM validator complains about such tagging.

Either we need to add an icon or outline, or we can remove this
from the list of rendered features. If the wiki is correct then it can
be removed, because properly-tagged features should have another, more
specific tag that can be rendered
This is offtopic for this mailing list.

Proper place for discussing rendering in this style is at its issue tracker at

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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2

5 Dec 2018, 11:40 by [hidden email]:
We have however many other tags where OSM-Carto recently added or
changed rendering in ways that provide mapping incentives agaist the
established meaning of the tags. 
Can you link issues opened on issue tracker that
report this serious problems?

I looked at it and I failed to find any that would be opened recently.

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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Mark Wagner
>>> How would you tag the following:
>>>
>>> * Boiling River and Firehole Swimming Area, naturally-heated
>>> stretches of river that are popular for swimming.
>> natural=water + leisure=swimming_area ? natural=water +
>> sport=swimming ?

You should also add natural=hot_spring to the node where hot water
enters the river, if possible:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dhot_spring

>> > * Petrified Tree, a large, petrified section of tree trunk.
>> natural=tree? natural=petrified_tree ?
> "Tree" is misleading.  "natural=petrified_tree" would be good, except
> it gets zero hits in TagInfo.

natural=rock and rock=petrified_wood could also work well. I wonder if
there is already a way to classify types of rock formations, eg
limestone, granite, basalt?

>> > * Norris Geyser Basin, Upper Geyser Basin, Artist Paint Pots,
>> > Fountain Paint Pots, and other named groups of thermal features.
>> natural=geyser ?
> "natural=geyser" is already in use for geysers.  Applying it to entire
> geyser basins would be like using the same tag for both single trees
> and forests.  (It would also be inaccurate, since these basins usually
> contain a mix of geysers, fumaroles, hot springs, and occasionally mud
> pots.)

This is a general "problem" in OSM; there are not many tags for whole
regions or areas. But it would be good to develop a proposal for
geothermal and volcanic features.
Someone started a proposal for volcanic features. Currently we can tag
hot springs, geysers, volcanic vents, and the results (peaks, areas of
basalt from lava flows, etc) but it would be good to have more tags:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Volcanic_features

>> > * Roaring Mountain, a hillside that contains a large number of steam
>> >    vents.
>>
>> place=locality ? natural=peak ? natural=hill ?
>
> "locality" might work, but it's even more generic than "tourist
> attraction".  "Peak" or "hill" don't work -- the summit is almost a mile
> to the southwest of the actual point of interest.

geological=volcanic_fumarole could be used for the individual steam
vents, perhaps?
natural=ridge is the correct way to tag a named ridge; drawn way along
the ridge top.

-Joseph

[PS: Some of these tags don't currently have a rendering in the
standard style, but that will change if more people use the tags, and
if I have enough time to make a few new PRs. Natural=ridge,
natural=hot_spring and natural=geyser are already on my To-Do list,
and we are working on natural=rock right now]

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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
7 Dec 2018, 02:13 by [hidden email]:
natural=rock and rock=petrified_wood could also work well. I wonder if
there is already a way to classify types of rock formations, eg
limestone, granite, basalt?
material tag?


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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Yves-2
In reply to this post by Warin


Le 6 décembre 2018 23:05:48 GMT+01:00, Warin <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>On 07/12/18 06:49, Mark Wagner wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100
>> Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/12/2018 08:38, Mark Wagner wrote:
>>>> Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair few bare
>>>> "tourism=attraction" objects.  How would you tag the following:
>>>>
>>>> * Boiling River and Firehole Swimming Area, naturally-heated
>>>> stretches of river that are popular for swimming.
>>> natural=water + leisure=swimming_area ? natural=water +
>>> sport=swimming ?
>> Seems reasonable.
>
> Except for sport. Sport implies competition, are there marked lanes
>for this competition? I'd think not. So I would leave sport out of it.
>
Sport key for competition or leisure, IMHO.
Yves

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12