Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

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

Re: Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Warin
On 07/12/18 16:09, Yves wrote:

>
> 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.

For leisure - swimming requires no marked lines etc (other than a pool of water).
So it has no specific infrastructure .. meaning it should not be in OSM?



_______________________________________________
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


Le 7 décembre 2018 08:24:33 GMT+01:00, Warin <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>On 07/12/18 16:09, Yves wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>For leisure - swimming requires no marked lines etc (other than a pool
>of water).
>So it has no specific infrastructure .. meaning it should not be in
>OSM?
>

OSM being OSM, you can't avoid a "swimming" tag to be added by a contributor one day or another to any piece of water he/she like to use for practice.

_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
On Friday 07 December 2018, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > 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.

I have not recently followed all of the changes and i mostly stoppend
reporting problems i see because when i did so these comments were
universally dismissed and had no influence.

The changes i refer to with my comment are in particular the
inflationary addition of new POI symbols many of which have been chosen
without considering the applicability to represent the feature type in
question across different cultures and different geographic settings.  
Many of these represent just the European urban cliché version of it.

The other group of changes i had in mind is the abuse of way_area
filtering as an universal cartographic importance rating, in particular
for point label placement.  The resulting initiatives of label drawing
through non-verifiable polygon painting can be observed right now.  And
tourism=attraction was one of the first tags to follow this principle
in OSM-Carto so it is kind of a forerunner in that regard.

I don't really see much of a chance of a change in direction here (in
other words:  it will likely get worse before it maybe gets better) but
i none the less consider it important to point out that this is
something that is visible right now to people who approach this with an
open mind and open eyes.

--
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 07.12.2018 o 12:23, Christoph Hormann pisze:

> The changes i refer to with my comment are in particular the
> inflationary addition of new POI symbols many of which have been chosen
> without considering the applicability to represent the feature type in
> question across different cultures and different geographic settings.

> The other group of changes i had in mind is the abuse of way_area
> filtering as an universal cartographic importance rating, in particular
> for point label placement.  

That sounds to me like a general complaint against changes you don't
like, not the answer about particular problem you have pointed out.

I don't see any of that is a "changed rendering in ways that provide
mapping incentives agaist
the established meaning of the tags" - especially the first one
(location of nodes for areas is already not verifiable, and you have
still not even answered how do you imagine finding the middle of
unverified shape). First of all, you are not referring to meaning of
tags in any way, let alone to changing it.


--

"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 20:49, Mark Wagner wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100 Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> natural=tree? natural=petrified_tree ?
>
> "Tree" is misleading.  "natural=petrified_tree" would be good, except
> it gets zero hits in TagInfo.

Nothing wrong with being the first use of a tag.

>>> * 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 don't think so. There are 1.2M+ place=localities in OSM, most just
with a name. A bare "tourism=attraction" is hard to interpret. Is it a
sign? A plaque? A building? "place=locality" says "this whole little
area is the attraction". Which is much more information


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