Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-04-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
2014-04-03 3:39 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout :

> It's difficult to come up with a scheme that handles all the possibilities
> especially if you consider the reality that most tag information will never
> show up on a standard map.



well, you won't get them on a paper map most probably, but digital maps
(e.g. on smartphones) will display more and more information, maybe even
raw tags in some cases, and so it is definitely worth adding as much
details as you'd like yourself to find in the data ;-)

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-04-02 Thread Dave Swarthout 
Nico said, "As a mountaineer I was very intrigued by the hut discussion and
wanted
to share some of my knowledge on this area. I will however definitely
exceed the initial question in this message, since I'm more interested
in the differentiation between the tags."

Actually, the reason I started this discussion was to provide more
differentiation between the various hut types by making their definitions
clearer. Some of the information Niko is curious about can already be
provided by existing tags:

fee=yes/no
access=*
opening_hours=May-Oct ; Nov-Apr off
ele=1300
operator=*
owner=*
description=*
etc.

It's difficult to come up with a scheme that handles all the possibilities
especially if you consider the reality that most tag information will never
show up on a standard map. Someone just said in another thread I'm
following that if we are indiscriminate in adding tags we will soon reach a
point where for each feature we add, something else must get dropped. If
you talk about how to render all these details, it gets trickier still.

To get back to my original idea — if we can consolidate a few of these
huts, and better define what we have left, maybe it will be easier to map
them without reading through 3 pages of instructions as Janko says.

Obviously, there is interest in resolving this issue but I don't know which
direction to take at the moment.

Cheers,
Dave


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> It's great to have new people enthusiastic about tagging.
>
> A good side of already existing tags (alpine_hut, shelter..) is that a
> mapper not very experianced in mountaineering can tag them easily without
> reading 3 pages of text. Also, non-specialized renderers don't have to
> think too much about them. They just put 2 kinds of icons and that's great.
>
> I don't think experienced mountaneers and specialized renderers should
> think much about those tags. They should treat alpine_huts, shelters,
> wildernes_huts, and hotels as the same thing. What they should look at are
> the specialized tags, and render according to them.
>
> Of course, if there are no specialized tags, there's not much they can do
> except render it as a question mark.
>
> So in my opinion, we should start with defining specialized tags, and stop
> trying to find boundaries for general terms.
> My apologies in advance if I break convention or code, but I just
> recently started mapping and even more recently joined the mailing list.
> As a mountaineer I was very intrigued by the hut discussion and wanted
> to share some of my knowledge on this area. I will however definitely
> exceed the initial question in this message, since I'm more interested
> in the differentiation between the tags.
>
> Of my experience in the Alps, larger huts are operated in season and can
> most often be accessed off-season as well, although this might require
> you to get a key somewhere in a nearby village. Often times only a
> smaller section of the hut is available off-season. Smaller unmanned
> huts (like Ren? Maroufi mentioned) can be considered emergency shelters,
> which rarely require a key. All huts vary in size and level of comfort.
>
> As a user of these huts key features I'd like to know about are:
> - What does it cost? (say the typical fee for an adult)
> - Do members of an Alpine society (DE: 'mitglieder') get a rebate?
> - Who/what operates the hut? (e.g. a certain person, a certain society)
> - Are you allowed to bring and cook your own food?
> - Period(s) of the hut being manned (can be multiple)
> - Contact information (phone, website, address, via common tags)
> - Capacity? (in number of persons both sleeping and visiting)
> - Facilities (e.g. running water, toilet, mattresses, blankets,
> electricity, lights)
> - Cooking/heating facilities and available fuel (often times a stash of
> wood is available)
> - Hut book available (for writing your name whilst on trip, for
> increased change of retrieval when something bad happens.
> - Deposit box for money available (or will you have to pay in town)
> - Last changes made to the hut (thereby determining the state of the
> hut) (via common tags)
> - Elevation (also via common tags)
> - Way of supply (helicopter, cableway, carriers) (this helps determine
> the likely cost of food and drinks) (a mapped helicopter landing site
> and a mapped cableway can help determine this, reducing the need for a
> tag).
>
> Now looking at available tagging schemes, I do recognize quit some of
> these parameters, but not all. In my opinion the tourism:x_hut and
> shelter_type:x should be combined (or at least be clearly separated).
>
> Depending on the tagging options, I believe a hut can be defined as
> being all the way from a basic shelter to a small hotel, therefore
> requiring a solid set of examples (from various countries) of hut
> types.
> Personally I'd prefer a more generic set of tags rather than having
> various definitions that implicitly define location (alpine_hut), use
> (em

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-04-02 Thread Janko Mihelić 
It's great to have new people enthusiastic about tagging.

A good side of already existing tags (alpine_hut, shelter..) is that a
mapper not very experianced in mountaineering can tag them easily without
reading 3 pages of text. Also, non-specialized renderers don't have to
think too much about them. They just put 2 kinds of icons and that's great.

I don't think experienced mountaneers and specialized renderers should
think much about those tags. They should treat alpine_huts, shelters,
wildernes_huts, and hotels as the same thing. What they should look at are
the specialized tags, and render according to them.

Of course, if there are no specialized tags, there's not much they can do
except render it as a question mark.

So in my opinion, we should start with defining specialized tags, and stop
trying to find boundaries for general terms.
My apologies in advance if I break convention or code, but I just
recently started mapping and even more recently joined the mailing list.
As a mountaineer I was very intrigued by the hut discussion and wanted
to share some of my knowledge on this area. I will however definitely
exceed the initial question in this message, since I'm more interested
in the differentiation between the tags.

Of my experience in the Alps, larger huts are operated in season and can
most often be accessed off-season as well, although this might require
you to get a key somewhere in a nearby village. Often times only a
smaller section of the hut is available off-season. Smaller unmanned
huts (like Ren? Maroufi mentioned) can be considered emergency shelters,
which rarely require a key. All huts vary in size and level of comfort.

As a user of these huts key features I'd like to know about are:
- What does it cost? (say the typical fee for an adult)
- Do members of an Alpine society (DE: 'mitglieder') get a rebate?
- Who/what operates the hut? (e.g. a certain person, a certain society)
- Are you allowed to bring and cook your own food?
- Period(s) of the hut being manned (can be multiple)
- Contact information (phone, website, address, via common tags)
- Capacity? (in number of persons both sleeping and visiting)
- Facilities (e.g. running water, toilet, mattresses, blankets,
electricity, lights)
- Cooking/heating facilities and available fuel (often times a stash of
wood is available)
- Hut book available (for writing your name whilst on trip, for
increased change of retrieval when something bad happens.
- Deposit box for money available (or will you have to pay in town)
- Last changes made to the hut (thereby determining the state of the
hut) (via common tags)
- Elevation (also via common tags)
- Way of supply (helicopter, cableway, carriers) (this helps determine
the likely cost of food and drinks) (a mapped helicopter landing site
and a mapped cableway can help determine this, reducing the need for a
tag).

Now looking at available tagging schemes, I do recognize quit some of
these parameters, but not all. In my opinion the tourism:x_hut and
shelter_type:x should be combined (or at least be clearly separated).

Depending on the tagging options, I believe a hut can be defined as
being all the way from a basic shelter to a small hotel, therefore
requiring a solid set of examples (from various countries) of hut
types.
Personally I'd prefer a more generic set of tags rather than having
various definitions that implicitly define location (alpine_hut), use
(emergency_shelter), type (lean_to) or level of comfort (basic_shelter).

Considering that most of the people on this mailing list are far more
experienced on tagging topics, I hope that this will fuel the discussion
necessary. Is it reasonable to start off on a new proposal as a way to
bring the huts into unison?

Kind regards,
Nico Rikken (NL)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-04-02 Thread Nico Rikken 
My apologies in advance if I break convention or code, but I just
recently started mapping and even more recently joined the mailing list.
As a mountaineer I was very intrigued by the hut discussion and wanted
to share some of my knowledge on this area. I will however definitely
exceed the initial question in this message, since I'm more interested
in the differentiation between the tags.

Of my experience in the Alps, larger huts are operated in season and can
most often be accessed off-season as well, although this might require
you to get a key somewhere in a nearby village. Often times only a
smaller section of the hut is available off-season. Smaller unmanned
huts (like Ren? Maroufi mentioned) can be considered emergency shelters,
which rarely require a key. All huts vary in size and level of comfort.

As a user of these huts key features I'd like to know about are:
- What does it cost? (say the typical fee for an adult)
- Do members of an Alpine society (DE: 'mitglieder') get a rebate?
- Who/what operates the hut? (e.g. a certain person, a certain society)
- Are you allowed to bring and cook your own food?
- Period(s) of the hut being manned (can be multiple)
- Contact information (phone, website, address, via common tags)
- Capacity? (in number of persons both sleeping and visiting)
- Facilities (e.g. running water, toilet, mattresses, blankets,
electricity, lights)
- Cooking/heating facilities and available fuel (often times a stash of
wood is available)
- Hut book available (for writing your name whilst on trip, for
increased change of retrieval when something bad happens.
- Deposit box for money available (or will you have to pay in town)
- Last changes made to the hut (thereby determining the state of the
hut) (via common tags)
- Elevation (also via common tags)
- Way of supply (helicopter, cableway, carriers) (this helps determine
the likely cost of food and drinks) (a mapped helicopter landing site
and a mapped cableway can help determine this, reducing the need for a
tag).

Now looking at available tagging schemes, I do recognize quit some of
these parameters, but not all. In my opinion the tourism:x_hut and
shelter_type:x should be combined (or at least be clearly separated).

Depending on the tagging options, I believe a hut can be defined as
being all the way from a basic shelter to a small hotel, therefore
requiring a solid set of examples (from various countries) of hut
types. 
Personally I'd prefer a more generic set of tags rather than having
various definitions that implicitly define location (alpine_hut), use
(emergency_shelter), type (lean_to) or level of comfort (basic_shelter).

Considering that most of the people on this mailing list are far more
experienced on tagging topics, I hope that this will fuel the discussion
necessary. Is it reasonable to start off on a new proposal as a way to
bring the huts into unison?

Kind regards,
Nico Rikken (NL)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-04-01 Thread Dudley Ibbett 
Could the more general description found for  "mountain hut" 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_hut be used in the context of 
"alpine_hut" as this would make it more universal.   This would then cover the 
"climbing huts" found in the UK as described in the wikipedia article.  
Additional tags could then be used to state whether it provides food, bedding, 
has a warden etc.   "Alpine Huts" don't always provide food and bedding.

As has already been mentioned, "Bothies" are probably the equivalent of a 
wilderness_hut in the UK but to make this fit the requirement "with fire place" 
really needs be removed.The wikipedia article description 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_hut  would cover these.

We also have a few hostels that are remote to the extent that you have to walk 
or cycle to them.   Some provide food and have a warden, some don't.

Another type of "accommodation" that it would be useful to map is the emergency 
shelter.  It is always good to know where these are, just in case!

Regards

Dudley  

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:13:44 +0200
From: dieterdre...@gmail.com
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts


2014-04-01 4:20 GMT+02:00 fly :

> Wikipedia shows several huts of the type I mean here:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_hut .Their definition says these

> are free — that is not the case in Alaska but is mostly true elsewhere

> in the U.S. AFAIK



We have access=* and fee=* to state this information.




Yes, I believe we shuldn't introduce the requirement "free" for wilderness_hut. 
It is common to give some sort of "voluntary" donation if you sleep in one of 
those huts around here, a contribution to the maintenance efforts for these 
places. They are also often locked up so you will have to contact the local 
"operator" in order to get access, still I don't see how "access" will come 
into play here.


cheers,
Martin


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-04-01 Thread Rene Maroufi 
On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 08:01:01AM +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> 
> I think a link to shelter:type would be a good addition to the Map
> Features; Tourism page for further choices when tagging wilderness
> shelters. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type. Note that
> this page throws more confusion into the discussion because on it they
> define a basic_hut that is, by my definition at least, the same thing we're
> talking about here. What a mess!

No, in the alps its not the same. In the alps tourism=wilderness_hut is
used for remote buildings operated by an alpine club, but (in contrast to
alpine_hut) without staff. These buildings are strongly built and well
equiped (kitchen and beds) houses, called "self catering huts" in German
(Selbstversorgerhütten). They are locked and you need a key
from the alpine club. These huts are for members of the alpine club
only. In contrast to this, shelter_type=basic_hut is a lightly built
small shelter with four walls and no equipment. Mostly they are situated
on high mountain levels, free accessable, sometimes with some kind of
bed but often without; you always can sleep in a sleeping bag there. In
German they are called "Biwakschachtel" (bivouac box).

Cheers
René
-- 
René Maroufi
i...@maroufi.net

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-04-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
2014-04-01 4:20 GMT+02:00 fly :

> > Wikipedia shows several huts of the type I mean here:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_hut .Their definition says these
> > are free — that is not the case in Alaska but is mostly true elsewhere
> > in the U.S. AFAIK
>
> We have access=* and fee=* to state this information.
>




Yes, I believe we shuldn't introduce the requirement "free" for
wilderness_hut. It is common to give some sort of "voluntary" donation if
you sleep in one of those huts around here, a contribution to the
maintenance efforts for these places. They are also often locked up so you
will have to contact the local "operator" in order to get access, still I
don't see how "access" will come into play here.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-04-01 Thread Dave Swarthout 
In the old days when the term was first  brought into use in the Adirondack
Mountains, it was just that, a bunch of spruce branches leaning against a
tree. At any rate, they are common features in the eastern American
wilderness regions.

See this link about lean-tos on the Appalachian Trail

http://www.appalachiantrail.org/hiking/hiking-basics/camping-shelters

The Adirondack Mountains in NY State have lean-tos as well. I've stayed in
lean-tos many times in my younger days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adirondack_lean-to

List of lean-tos: http://cnyhiking.com/AdirondackLeanTos.htm



On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Steve Doerr  wrote:

> On 01/04/2014 02:01, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>
>  Fly mentioned shelter_type just now — another type of wilderness
>> accommodation is a basic shelter called a lean-to, a rough three sided,
>> roofed shelter, open to the elements on one side.
>>
>
> That's an odd use of the word 'lean-to'. Yes, a lean-to is a three-sided
> structure, but it's only a lean-to if it 'leans' against another structure
> which effectively supplies the fourth side. A free-standing lean-to is a
> contradiction in terms!
>
> --
> Steve
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-04-01 Thread Steve Doerr 

On 01/04/2014 02:01, Dave Swarthout wrote:

Fly mentioned shelter_type just now — another type of wilderness 
accommodation is a basic shelter called a lean-to, a rough three 
sided, roofed shelter, open to the elements on one side.


That's an odd use of the word 'lean-to'. Yes, a lean-to is a three-sided 
structure, but it's only a lean-to if it 'leans' against another 
structure which effectively supplies the fourth side. A free-standing 
lean-to is a contradiction in terms!


--
Steve

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-03-31 Thread Yves 
There is this site refuges.info that could be used to help defining useful tags 
at least for France.

On 1 avril 2014 04:20:08 UTC+02:00, fly  wrote:
>On 01.04.2014 03:01, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>> So, an alpine_hut is, at least in Europe, an operated place sort of
>like
>> a guest_house? I don't think we have anything comparable in the U.S.
>
>How about this one:
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/419229498 ?
>
>> Wikipedia shows several huts of the type I mean here:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_hut .Their definition says
>these
>> are free — that is not the case in Alaska but is mostly true
>elsewhere
>> in the U.S. AFAIK
>
>We have access=* and fee=* to state this information.
>
>> Fly mentioned shelter_type just now — another type of wilderness
>> accommodation is a basic shelter called a lean-to, a rough three
>sided,
>> roofed shelter, open to the elements on one side. There is generally
>a
>> fire pit in front although these days the custom of having open fires
>in
>> designated wilderness areas is greatly discouraged, even illegal, in
>> many of them.
>
>In Europe, even at official fire pits, it always depends on the weather
>conditions if it might be illegal to have an open fire outdoors.
>
>> I think a link to shelter:type would be a good addition to the Map
>> Features; Tourism page for further choices when tagging wilderness
>> shelters. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type. Note
>that
>> this page throws more confusion into the discussion because on it
>they
>> define a basic_hut that is, by my definition at least, the same thing
>> we're talking about here. What a mess!
>
>Well it is never to late for a clean up once we find the proper
>definitions, descriptions and names.
>
>Thought shelter_type=basic_hut offers less infrastructure and is tinier
>than wilderness_hut but we could also merge them. You even find some
>wilderness_huts under shelter_type=* already [1].
>
>The value was added without a proposal and was not part of the original
>proposal. All together, I would drop it in favour of wilderness hut to
>have only open and always accessible buildings under shelter.
>
>> @Jonathan - thanks for the link to bothy. Some of those would fit my
>> definition of wilderness_hut although not the one in Windsor Castle
>LOL.
>> Also, I'm curious, there is certainly no wilderness in the U.K
>> comparable in size or remoteness to those we have in Alaska but is
>there
>> any area known as wilderness there?
>
>Even though I have been only as tourist in GB, I know there are some
>lonely and rough spots there where you will be happy to find a nice
>shelter if weather changes rapidly or after some kind of problem
>outdoors.
>
>
>My 2ct
>fly
>
>[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=shelter_type#values
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-03-31 Thread fly 
On 01.04.2014 03:01, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> So, an alpine_hut is, at least in Europe, an operated place sort of like
> a guest_house? I don't think we have anything comparable in the U.S.

How about this one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/419229498 ?

> Wikipedia shows several huts of the type I mean here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_hut .Their definition says these
> are free — that is not the case in Alaska but is mostly true elsewhere
> in the U.S. AFAIK

We have access=* and fee=* to state this information.

> Fly mentioned shelter_type just now — another type of wilderness
> accommodation is a basic shelter called a lean-to, a rough three sided,
> roofed shelter, open to the elements on one side. There is generally a
> fire pit in front although these days the custom of having open fires in
> designated wilderness areas is greatly discouraged, even illegal, in
> many of them.

In Europe, even at official fire pits, it always depends on the weather
conditions if it might be illegal to have an open fire outdoors.

> I think a link to shelter:type would be a good addition to the Map
> Features; Tourism page for further choices when tagging wilderness
> shelters. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type. Note that
> this page throws more confusion into the discussion because on it they
> define a basic_hut that is, by my definition at least, the same thing
> we're talking about here. What a mess!

Well it is never to late for a clean up once we find the proper
definitions, descriptions and names.

Thought shelter_type=basic_hut offers less infrastructure and is tinier
than wilderness_hut but we could also merge them. You even find some
wilderness_huts under shelter_type=* already [1].

The value was added without a proposal and was not part of the original
proposal. All together, I would drop it in favour of wilderness hut to
have only open and always accessible buildings under shelter.

> @Jonathan - thanks for the link to bothy. Some of those would fit my
> definition of wilderness_hut although not the one in Windsor Castle LOL.
> Also, I'm curious, there is certainly no wilderness in the U.K
> comparable in size or remoteness to those we have in Alaska but is there
> any area known as wilderness there?

Even though I have been only as tourist in GB, I know there are some
lonely and rough spots there where you will be happy to find a nice
shelter if weather changes rapidly or after some kind of problem outdoors.


My 2ct
fly

[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=shelter_type#values

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-03-31 Thread Dave Swarthout 
So, an alpine_hut is, at least in Europe, an operated place sort of like a
guest_house? I don't think we have anything comparable in the U.S.
Wikipedia shows several huts of the type I mean here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_hut .Their definition says these
are free — that is not the case in Alaska but is mostly true elsewhere in
the U.S. AFAIK

Fly mentioned shelter_type just now — another type of wilderness
accommodation is a basic shelter called a lean-to, a rough three sided,
roofed shelter, open to the elements on one side. There is generally a fire
pit in front although these days the custom of having open fires in
designated wilderness areas is greatly discouraged, even illegal, in many
of them.

I think a link to shelter:type would be a good addition to the Map
Features; Tourism page for further choices when tagging wilderness
shelters. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type. Note that
this page throws more confusion into the discussion because on it they
define a basic_hut that is, by my definition at least, the same thing we're
talking about here. What a mess!

@Jonathan - thanks for the link to bothy. Some of those would fit my
definition of wilderness_hut although not the one in Windsor Castle LOL.
Also, I'm curious, there is certainly no wilderness in the U.K comparable
in size or remoteness to those we have in Alaska but is there any area
known as wilderness there?



On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 12:04 AM, fly  wrote:

> On 31.03.2014 18:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > 2014-03-31 18:18 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout  > >:
> >
> > @fly
> >
> > "What is the difference between a mountain, alpine, or wilderness
> > hut" is exactly what I'm trying to determine.
> >
> > Mountain_hut is not used much —  only 7 instances — so I think it
> > can safely be considered to be the same as an alpine_hut which, by
> > definition, is located in mountainous regions.
> >
> > Wilderness huts are something I'm familiar with so I'm seeking to
> > clarify what it is about them that would invite the use of that tag.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think the difference is that a mountainhut or alpine hut will have
> > someone who sells you something to eat (i.e. some kind of "restaurant"),
> > while a wilderness hut will usually not have staff. See here:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dalpine_hut
>
> You are right. alpine_hut is an operated place. In the alps most of them
> are operated by the nation alpine clubs.
>
> But you will find wilderness_huts in the alps, aswell.
>
> I see a slight overlap with shelter_type=basic_hut but with proper
> description to distinguish and links this will work.
>
> cu fly
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-03-31 Thread fly 
On 31.03.2014 18:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 2014-03-31 18:18 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout  >:
> 
> @fly
> 
> "What is the difference between a mountain, alpine, or wilderness
> hut" is exactly what I'm trying to determine.
> 
> Mountain_hut is not used much —  only 7 instances — so I think it
> can safely be considered to be the same as an alpine_hut which, by
> definition, is located in mountainous regions. 
> 
> Wilderness huts are something I'm familiar with so I'm seeking to
> clarify what it is about them that would invite the use of that tag. 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the difference is that a mountainhut or alpine hut will have
> someone who sells you something to eat (i.e. some kind of "restaurant"),
> while a wilderness hut will usually not have staff. See here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dalpine_hut

You are right. alpine_hut is an operated place. In the alps most of them
are operated by the nation alpine clubs.

But you will find wilderness_huts in the alps, aswell.

I see a slight overlap with shelter_type=basic_hut but with proper
description to distinguish and links this will work.

cu fly


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-03-31 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
2014-03-31 18:18 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout :

> @fly
>
> "What is the difference between a mountain, alpine, or wilderness hut" is
> exactly what I'm trying to determine.
>
> Mountain_hut is not used much —  only 7 instances — so I think it can
> safely be considered to be the same as an alpine_hut which, by definition,
> is located in mountainous regions.
>
> Wilderness huts are something I'm familiar with so I'm seeking to clarify
> what it is about them that would invite the use of that tag.
>


I think the difference is that a mountainhut or alpine hut will have
someone who sells you something to eat (i.e. some kind of "restaurant"),
while a wilderness hut will usually not have staff. See here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dalpine_hut

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-03-31 Thread jonathan 

In the UK, particularly Scotland, it's a Bothy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bothy

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 31/03/2014 04:14, Dave Swarthout wrote:
In reading over a proposal in here for apartment sharing that included 
a list of other tourism keys relating to lodging or accommodation that 
included, among other remotely located shelters, the value 
wilderness_hut. We have 60 such wilderness cabins and 4 ice huts in 
Alaska managed by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. They are 
scattered here and there in the wilds, have wood or oil heat, pit 
toilets, bunks for up to 8 people, and are unreachable by the highway 
system. Access is by hiking, or by boat or small plane.


Alaska State Parks Public Use Cabins: 
http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/cabins/index.htm


See here for an example information webpage with reservation link at 
the bottom: http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/cabins/gulf.htm


And one I recently placed on the OSM near Midtimber Lake

Node: Midtimber Lake Cabin (2755176663)
  Data Set: 95b38f
  Edited at: 
  Edited by: 
  Version: 1
  In changeset: 21410843
  Tags:
"fee"="yes"
"building"="yes"
"source"="Bing"
"website"="http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/cabins/gulf.htm";
"name"="Midtimber Lake Cabin"
"tourism"="wilderness_hut"
"access"="public"
"operator"="Alaska Department of Natural Resources"

I am proposing adding the words "typically not accessible from the 
highway system" to the definition for wilderness_hut in the Map 
Features; Tourism section. Currently it says: "A remote building with 
fireplace intended to provide shelter and sleeping accommodation."


Also I think the term fireplace is too restrictive. I would propose 
"usually equipped with a heat source of some type"


The complete definition might read:
"A remote building usually equipped with a heat source of some type 
and typically not accessible from the highway system intended to 
provide shelter and sleeping accommodation."


I use the words "typically" and "usually" because there are 722 
instances of such huts and I do not know if those other places have 
road access or not. The ones in Alaska do not.


What do you think?

Dave
--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-03-31 Thread Dave Swarthout 
@fly

"What is the difference between a mountain, alpine, or wilderness hut" is
exactly what I'm trying to determine.

Mountain_hut is not used much —  only 7 instances — so I think it can
safely be considered to be the same as an alpine_hut which, by definition,
is located in mountainous regions.

Wilderness huts are something I'm familiar with so I'm seeking to clarify
what it is about them that would invite the use of that tag. Being in a
wild or primitive area is one, being away from well traveled highways is
another. It seems to me that alpine_hut is the same, or at least similar,
so perhaps those three can be covered with only one tag.

That's the direction I'm trying to pursue anyway


On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:30 PM, fly  wrote:

> Well, what is the difference between a mountain, alpine or wilderness hut ?
>
> Think much more important than the name and its surrounding are the
> available facilities, capacity and equipment.
>
> Rather than splitting the types by name I would prefer to get
> information about how useful the hut is for my needs.
>
> Cheers fly
>
> On 31.03.2014 12:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > 2014-03-31 5:14 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout  > >:
> >
> > I am proposing adding the words "typically not accessible from the
> > highway system" to the definition for wilderness_hut in the Map
> > Features; Tourism section. Currently it says: "A remote building
> > with fireplace intended to provide shelter and sleeping
> accommodation."
> >
> >
> >
> > "typically not accessible from the highway system" is fine for me if you
> > read "highway" to exclude tracks. If you travel by tractor, enduro
> > motorbike or Jeep you might be able to access many wilderness huts also
> > with motorized vehicles.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Also I think the term fireplace is too restrictive. I would propose
> > "usually equipped with a heat source of some type"
> >
> >
> >
> > On the other hand there are wilderness huts where "fireplace" is to take
> > literally (there is a circle of stones in front of it, where you can
> > light a fire, but there is no "heatsource" in the hut, you will have to
> > collect wood in the surroundings. We should take care not to exclude
> > those places. The main feature of a wilderness hut is IMHO a dry
> > shelter, i.e. a place where you can stay the night in relative security,
> > protected from the weather and wild animals.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-03-31 Thread Dave Swarthout 
Yes, thanks Martin, I forgot to "Reply to All"

I'm glad to hear your explanation. What was possibly meant was "a place to
have fire" and not our American formal "fireplace". The cabins I'm familiar
with have a small wood stove, which is a metal box with a tight fitting
door and air vents to control burning rate. Many Alaskan family homes have
these too, especially if situated near a decent supply of fire wood.


On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> 2014-03-31 13:28 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout :
>
> I think you're right in saying some of these huts might only have a
>> "circle of stones" for a fire but the definition in use now uses the term
>> fireplace so your example has already been excluded.
>
>
>
> posting to the ML because I think private mail was not on purpose.
>
>
> I see this now (from wikipedia.en). Actually being German I got caught by
> a false friend and my guess is that who wrote the wiki might as well have
> fallen into this trap. In German the word is "Feuerstelle" (literally "fire
> place") but it would translate mostly into fire pit I guess. Problem is
> that common dictionaries give as well the term "fireplace", this because
> "Feuerstelle" can also have different, more generic meanings (spot inside a
> house to make fire, i.e. a fireside, fireplace but also a cooker or stove
> or even "kitchen"). These are very ancient words from the childhood of
> civilization, which have been in continuous use until now, with continuous
> alignment of the meaning. I'd like to hear from other users if maybe this
> "fireplace" requirement was always intended as a spot to light fire, or if
> the requirement for a structure was set up on purpose.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-03-31 Thread fly 
Well, what is the difference between a mountain, alpine or wilderness hut ?

Think much more important than the name and its surrounding are the
available facilities, capacity and equipment.

Rather than splitting the types by name I would prefer to get
information about how useful the hut is for my needs.

Cheers fly

On 31.03.2014 12:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2014-03-31 5:14 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout  >:
> 
> I am proposing adding the words "typically not accessible from the
> highway system" to the definition for wilderness_hut in the Map
> Features; Tourism section. Currently it says: "A remote building
> with fireplace intended to provide shelter and sleeping accommodation."
> 
> 
> 
> "typically not accessible from the highway system" is fine for me if you
> read "highway" to exclude tracks. If you travel by tractor, enduro
> motorbike or Jeep you might be able to access many wilderness huts also
> with motorized vehicles.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Also I think the term fireplace is too restrictive. I would propose
> "usually equipped with a heat source of some type"
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand there are wilderness huts where "fireplace" is to take
> literally (there is a circle of stones in front of it, where you can
> light a fire, but there is no "heatsource" in the hut, you will have to
> collect wood in the surroundings. We should take care not to exclude
> those places. The main feature of a wilderness hut is IMHO a dry
> shelter, i.e. a place where you can stay the night in relative security,
> protected from the weather and wild animals.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-03-31 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
2014-03-31 5:14 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout :

> I am proposing adding the words "typically not accessible from the highway
> system" to the definition for wilderness_hut in the Map Features; Tourism
> section. Currently it says: "A remote building with fireplace intended to
> provide shelter and sleeping accommodation."
>


"typically not accessible from the highway system" is fine for me if you
read "highway" to exclude tracks. If you travel by tractor, enduro
motorbike or Jeep you might be able to access many wilderness huts also
with motorized vehicles.



>
> Also I think the term fireplace is too restrictive. I would propose
> "usually equipped with a heat source of some type"
>
>

On the other hand there are wilderness huts where "fireplace" is to take
literally (there is a circle of stones in front of it, where you can light
a fire, but there is no "heatsource" in the hut, you will have to collect
wood in the surroundings. We should take care not to exclude those places.
The main feature of a wilderness hut is IMHO a dry shelter, i.e. a place
where you can stay the night in relative security, protected from the
weather and wild animals.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Wilderness huts

2014-03-30 Thread Dave Swarthout 
In reading over a proposal in here for apartment sharing that included a
list of other tourism keys relating to lodging or accommodation that
included, among other remotely located shelters, the value wilderness_hut.
We have 60 such wilderness cabins and 4 ice huts in Alaska managed by the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources. They are scattered here and there
in the wilds, have wood or oil heat, pit toilets, bunks for up to 8 people,
and are unreachable by the highway system. Access is by hiking, or by boat
or small plane.

Alaska State Parks Public Use Cabins:
http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/cabins/index.htm

See here for an example information webpage with reservation link at the
bottom: http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/cabins/gulf.htm

And one I recently placed on the OSM near Midtimber Lake

Node: Midtimber Lake Cabin (2755176663)
  Data Set: 95b38f
  Edited at: 
  Edited by: 
  Version: 1
  In changeset: 21410843
  Tags:
"fee"="yes"
"building"="yes"
"source"="Bing"
"website"="http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/cabins/gulf.htm";
"name"="Midtimber Lake Cabin"
"tourism"="wilderness_hut"
"access"="public"
"operator"="Alaska Department of Natural Resources"

I am proposing adding the words "typically not accessible from the highway
system" to the definition for wilderness_hut in the Map Features; Tourism
section. Currently it says: "A remote building with fireplace intended to
provide shelter and sleeping accommodation."

Also I think the term fireplace is too restrictive. I would propose
"usually equipped with a heat source of some type"

The complete definition might read:
"A remote building usually equipped with a heat source of some type and
typically not accessible from the highway system intended to provide
shelter and sleeping accommodation."

I use the words "typically" and "usually" because there are 722 instances
of such huts and I do not know if those other places have road access or
not. The ones in Alaska do not.

What do you think?

Dave
-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging