Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - sunbathing
The voting reached the planned end date. There are 18 votes in total submitted there plus 2 non-voting comments. The results are: 13 "yes" including my own vote and 5 "no" including one without a comment, which gives 72% of "yes" votes. It's marginally lower than 74%, but the response is apparently rather positive. I'm quite happy to see such a result for the novice's submission, but on the other hand there probably something which could be improved in the proposal. Any suggestions? -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] railway=level_crossing vs tracks embedded into the road
It's quite often that people mark every crossing between railway=* and highway=* with the railway=level_crossing tag (https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Nls), sometimes even if both belong to the same carriageway. While this situation is rather relevant to tramways, but it also applies other types of railways even the "heavy rails" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_running. For example: https://youtu.be/9iG0xOAgWMI?t=212. On the other hand as per the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic (https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/Conv_road_traffic_EN.pdf): > (i) “Level-crossing” means any level intersection between a road and a > railway or tramway track with its own track formation; So, if a railway=* track is *embedded* into a road then it's crossing of another road is not a "level crossing". As a matter of fact it's quite common that such a crossing have no special marking or signage about it. I think that the Geneva Convention gives an important clarification which could help solving some confusion about the matter in question. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposing an amendment for an existing tag
dieterdreist wrote > can you please be more specific? It really depends on the kind of > amendment > which procedure seems appropriate (or at least isn't for sure). At some urban locations one can find (https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Nls) that every crossing of a railway=tram with any highway=* is tagged with railway=level_crossing even if railway=tram is actually embedded into the roadbed and there is no special marking or signage about it there. On the other hand as per the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic (https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/Conv_road_traffic_EN.pdf) such a crossing counts as a "level crossing" only if a railway is separated from the road: > (i) “Level-crossing” means any level intersection between a road > and a railway or tramway track with its own track formation; I think that's a rather important clarification which could help solving some confusion about the matter which arises sometimes. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Proposing an amendment for an existing tag
I wonder how such an amendment could be arranged. Should I just make a copy of an existing page, make the relevant changes there and let people know what it is all about? Thanks Vadim -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - sunbathing
Hello, I've opened the voting for the leisure=sunbathing_area to tag outdoor locations dedicated for sunbathing. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sunbathing Verifiability is an underlying assumption of OSM. Hence the word "dedicated" is essential for describing such an area. If in doubt about the place then seek for the information from the relevant authority or an owner. Otherwise don't tag. Cheers Vadim -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
> Great. Write your proposal around those designated areas. Put photos of the signage > in the proposal, if you have them. As you've put yourself: a "designated area" is not equivalent to an "area with a signage". > The wiki page for leisure=fishing doesn't require verifiability because > that is an underlying > assumption of OSM. Likewise the word to look at the proposal is "dedicated". If in doubt about the place then seek for the information from the relevant authority. Otherwise don't tag. A lack of a specific feature at the OSM wiki doesn't mean you can't map this feature: "Any tags you like". I needed a tag for something. "So I've followed good practice and searched the Wiki, Map Features, Proposed features, Rejected features, Proposed Relations and mailing lists' archives and still can't find a tag for what I'd like to map. I'm proposing a coordinated and verifiable way to tag a feature. Do you have a better way to tag it? Then please do let us know. Anyway, as I wrote at times it's not possible to satisfy everyone's taste. I've just tried to express my thoughts as far as I've managed and actually I've found the discussion is quite useful. OK. It looks like there are no new comments on the proposal and it's time to move to the voting stage. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
I think you guys forgot one thing: the OSM is not specifically about UK, Australia or any other country. It's a global map. In your region you may perhaps you may not have any dedicated areas for sunbathing, so -- don't use the tag. On the other hand I could imagine there are some countries you could be jailed if you'd try to sunbathe in the fields. You may also find something in the middle. Here and then I've found some areas designated for sunbathing, and I wanted to map it accordingly. Re: other tags. I didn't put my reasoning hence probably your reaction. In the essence, please try to look not only outside your window. Tag:leisure=fishing simply says "Place for fishing", that's it literally. So probably you use your *personal assumptions* if using this tag which could not be obvious for the others. I could imagine that in UK you may only fish at the marked areas and you'd be fined if you go fishing anywhere else. In other regions you can go fishing nearly everywhere except the nature reserves (also depends on how you do your fishing). So in the latter case you may say that leisure=fishing is vague and useless. But if you stick to the dedicated areas (which the leisure=fishing currently does not require) it becomes much easier to verify it. That's what I'm using in the proposal. As for the others... leisure=swimming_area as per the wiki a signage is not required, buoys, etc. are optional. It just needs to be an "officially designated place". amenity=lounger -- could be a movable and seasonal object. leisure=outdoor_seating in some countries could be just a part of a street in a good weather. Tag:leisure=dance could be not only dance halls, but also "other venues which offer social dancing or participation dancing". Again a signage is not required. In all these cases you, as a responsible mapper need to ask your judgement if indeed your tagging could be verified by others. BTW please excuse my English if it matters. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
Tagging mailing list wrote > That you've changed your tune & given vague/unrealistic examples > suggests you don't really have a proposal with any validity. It appears > you have a solution looking for a problem. > > Maybe your OSM time would be better spent on other aspects of the project? I think it's no more vague than some many other tags in OSM. For example have a look at leisure=fishing leisure=swimming_area amenity=lounger leisure=outdoor_seating leisure=dance If you don't like it then no problem. Sometimes it's not possible to satisfy everyone's taste. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
dieterdreist wrote > sent from a phone > >> On 14. Oct 2019, at 20:03, Markus > selfishseahorse@ > wrote: >> >> It's a detail, but i think that leisure=sunbathing_area (or >> leisure=sunbathing_place) were a more descriptive tag than >> leisure=sunbathing. Besides, most leisure=* values are nouns. > > > I agree with sunbathing_area being a better value for leisure, although > the word „sunbathing“ can also be used as a noun. > > I would personally find a property sunbathing=yes/no to be applied to > other areas (which can have different purposes) more useful. Yes, leisure=sunbathing_area seems to me fine, especially on par with the leisure=swimming_area. IMHO leisure=sunbathing_area should be a self-contained area, somewhat similar to leisure=swimming_area or leisure=pitch. Each of them denotes an area associated with a certain activity. sunbathing=yes/no on the other hand is closer to access=* (similarly to fishing=*). As discussed earlier perhaps only sunbathing=no would make some sense. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
Tagging mailing list wrote > Better to drop it. it's too vague/general. > > All the examples in this list are leisure places (Beach, lido, park) at > which sunbathing is just one of many assumed activities. Swimming, > kicking a ball about, throwing a frisbee etc.There's no requirement to > explicitly tag it. Apparently you've misunderstood the proposal. It is not about a place where sunbathing is generally allowed, which indeed would be too vague/general. It's about a dedicated place. For swimming see leisure=swimming_area, for kicking a ball about, throwing a frisbee etc. probably landuse=grass or leisure=pitch. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
OK. Any more comments or we better go for a vote? -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Pedestrian and highway crossings of tramways
Richard Fairhurst wrote > There is no need to have railway=crossing, railway=level_crossing, > railway=tram_crossing and railway=tram_level_crossing. They are > semantically > identical. The type of ways (tram or heavy rail, footpath or road) is > already expressed in the way tags and doesn't need to be duplicated in the > node tags. > > Let's just standardise on the simplest tag, railway=crossing, and nuke the > others. Actually for me it looks quite logic. At the list one could find a couple of topics on this matter. http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Why-the-difference-between-railway-crossing-and-level-crossing-tt5261037.html http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Why-are-railway-crossing-and-level-crossing-separate-tags-tt5258808.html On the other hand railway=crossing vs railway=level_crossing are at least documented at the OSM wiki. Perhaps it's worth to sort out the incorrect ones first. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
Paul Allen wrote > You've found pictures of sunbathing areas with sunshades. > Others have found pictures of sunbathing areas without sunshades. Yet > others have > found pictures of sunshades that are most definitely not in sunbathing > areas. Great! That sounds good to me. Paul Allen wrote > The presence or absences of sunshades is not a reliable indicator. Did I say the opposite? -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
Paul Allen wrote > They are not a good indicator either > way and therefore should not be mentioned in the proposal even as a > possible indicator. Perhaps that's question of a definition. Please have a look at 3 pictures posted here earlier and let me know what do you think of them. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
Florian Lohoff-2 wrote > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:38:28AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Mapping large, multi-lane roads with a "do not cross line" in the > middle as single line requires 4-5 times the number of turn > restrictions. These are number i am estimating from my own experience > mapping it one or the other way. > At every way junction one has to model every disallowed way/turn. > From my experience this is very error prone. +1 Also there are some arrangements which probably do not have a simple solution even with centre=* tag suggested here. For example a street with a tramway track in the middle separated from the rest of the roadbed by dividing lines at each side which vehicles cannot cross: https://goo.gl/maps/VHKbwjMoCVwawHxU9. By the way tramway tracks are drawn with two separate ways, so a single way line in the middle would make you think that the tramway tracks are not in the middle of the roadbed but at its sides. Another example is a bus lane in the middle of the road: 2 lanes of forward traffic, a forward bus lane, a backward bus lane, backward traffic https://goo.gl/maps/FubkLdHRP6DHLkv86. Yes another one is a bus lane on the right side, but it turns on the left through 4 lanes of normal forward traffic which not allowed to turn left https://goo.gl/maps/QFcfDW9h7cQ3UMJaA. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Pedestrian and highway crossings of tramways
Markus-5 wrote > The problem here is that pedestrians are routed along the highway=* > way and, as you wrote, tram tracks are usually (unfortunately) mapped > as separate ways. Consequently, the railway=crossing node is > disconnected from the highway=* way with the highway=crossing node > (that is, on another way). Therefore a router doesn't know that trams > also pass this pedestrian crossing (except if pavements and pedestrian > crossings are mapped as separate ways, which, however, has other > drawbacks). Oh, I see now what did you mean. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
Tagging mailing list wrote > Our local Primary School (ages 4 - 11 years, just in case there is any > doubt) has shade sails over part of the playground to protect the little > darlings from the sun whilst playing outside. > You would not get as very warm welcome, if you turned up there in your > bikini, or budgie smugglers, asking to use the designated sunbathing area > that was shown on your map! Blimey I didn't say sunshades == sunbathing. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote > On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 00:30, Vɑdɪm > vadp.devl@ > wrote: > >> >> As for sunshades (or parasoles), they are used by sunbathers en masse, in >> particular to cast a shadow on the face. >> > > Maybe at the places that you sunbathe, but certainly not everywhere! That's right, they aren't a precondition. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
Paul Allen wrote > On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 14:16, Vɑdɪm > vadp.devl@ > wrote: > I'm not convinced your > proposal is > useful anyway, so would probably abstain, but if your proposal says that > sunshades > are indicative of sunbathing areas I will definitely vote against it. Please help yourself, read the proposal. As for sunshades (or parasoles), they are used by sunbathers en masse, in particular to cast a shadow on the face. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway crossings with cycleways
On the other hand the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic mentions crossings for cyclists separately (https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/Conv_road_traffic_EN.pdf): > 3. (a) The standing or parking of a vehicle on the carriageway shall be > prohibited: > (i) On pedestrian crossings, on *crossings for cyclists*, and on > level-crossings; -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway crossings with cycleways
Paul Johnson-3 wrote > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:58 AM Martin Koppenhoefer > dieterdreist@ > > wrote: > > I'm strongly inclined to consider a cycleway a road, not a footway. How is about a shared way for pedestrians and bicyclists ? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_240_-_Gemeinsamer_Fuß-_und_Radweg,_StVO_1992.svg -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 15:40, Paul Allen [via GIS] wrote: > > Actually, it's true of the rest of the world, too. You cannot sunbathe > under a sunshade. > Therefore sunshades are NOT indicative that an area is for sunbathing. > Maybe, just > maybe, an area designated for sunbathing may have some sunshades for > people > who need a little respite. But an area might have sunshades because it's > for people > who wish to sit in the shade in a hot climate. There is no any requirement for sunshades in the proposal. Albeit I think they could be used as one of the indicators. Please have a look at the examples. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Pedestrian and highway crossings of tramways
Hi Markus-5, On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 20:14, Markus-5 [via GIS] wrote: > > I don't know the situation in other countries, but in Switzerland, > pedestrian train crossing are signalised (example [1]), while > pedestrian tram crossings usually aren't (example [2]), even if the > tram runs on a reserved track (i.e. separated form the road). Thus i > think it may make sense to use a different tag for pedestrian tram > crossings. You're assuming here some default features of a crossing which is not railway=crossing is about. It's a mere indication that a crossing exists at a specific location along the railway=* way. To describe some features of a crossing you'd use crossing=* tag, like crossing=traffic_signals or crossing=uncontrolled for examples [1] and [2] respectively. That's how it's suggested at the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing anyway. Consider also highway=crossing which doesn't describe any features of a crossing, while a crossing of a highway=trunk could be dramatically different from a crossing of a highway=unclassified. You don't though tag the 1st one as crossing:trunk=yes and crossing:unclassified=yes. Instead you'd probably put something like crossing=traffic_signals + crossing=island for the 1st one and crossing=uncontrolled for the 2nd one. > Besides, most pedestrian tram crossing where the tram runs on the road > aren't exclusively pedestrians + trams crossings, but pedestrians + > road traffic + trams crossings, and are already tagged > highway=crossing. I think these tram crossings are best tagged as a > property on the highway=crossing node (and, if mapped, on the > footway=crossing way), e.g. crossing:tram=yes (using the already used > crossing: prefix). The thing is that if even if tramway track is embedded into a roadbed and it looks obvious at the Mapnik in the OSM they are usually mapped as separate ways. Crossing of each of them are separate nodes: one at the highway=something another one at the railway=something. As a matter of fact there are plenty of tramway crossings in Switzerland which are marked with railway=crossing: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MY1 -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 13:39, Warin [via GIS] wrote: > In Australia sunshades are to keep people out of the sun, not for > 'sunbathing'. > > Poolsides and beaches are used for sunbathing... but have no official > 'designation' for sunbathing. > > The only designated sunbathing I can find on the web are for nude or top > less sunbathing. This case is simple one: if there is no place designated for sunbathing then there in no need to tag it. That's the point. On the other hand they could install sunshades somewhere even if it's designated for sunbathing. I've seen some of them. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 12:21, Marc Gemis [via GIS] wrote: > > Does this include places like the one see in the images here [1] > Those depict what we call ligweide or zonneweide in Dutch. Those are > grass areas typically next to a open-air swimming pool. > > > [1] > https://www.google.com/search?q=ligweide=isch=univ=X=2ahUKEwjytMDY647lAhWSKFAKHQGFDKoQsAR6BAgJEAE=2438=1256=2 It depends if they are really designated for sunbathing by some authority: the establishment owner, the park, etc. Otherwise, as pointed out earlier by some people, in some contexts you'd sunbath nearly everywhere. It needs to be verifiable somehow. Some sunshades installed, etc. would be a good sign. From your link I see a couple of distinctive examples: https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/08/1c/b5/60/ligweide-tussen-de-2.jpg https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0a/b3/42/e5/ligweide-bij-het-strand.jpg Perhaps it also could be places like at the http://www.peschici.it/contatore/strutture/output/Foto/5996_9671_189120-20190115-112302.jpg where leisure=sunbathing would be a part of the leisure=beach_resort. In this picture you'd see 2 different bathing establishments (stabilimenti balneari). One of them which is at the foreground also has a bar, probably some sanitary facilities, etc. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
Warin wrote > Humm.. don't think any place here is 'designated' for sunbathing. > > Who has done this 'designation' for sunbathing? Actually there are some. Please have a look at the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sunbathing#Examples, specifically at the 1st couple of them (more to come). If you see there some equipment -- sunshades, etc installed by the park authority, bathing establishment, et al. then you'd guess it's an area designated to sunbathing. Probably at some places you'd even find a signpost or similar. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Pedestrian and highway crossings of tramways
One could find two different schemes are used for this across the OSM: #1. The most popular way is to tag the nodes with railway=crossing (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dcrossing). There are currently *35151* nodes like this around the world https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MVO. It looks quite logic: a tram is an instance of a railway (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway). If someone needs to give more specifics for such a crossing then some crossing=* tag probably is the best bet. #2. In certain areas we see the pedestrian crossings of tramways are tagged with railway=tram_crossing. There are currently *1241* nodes like this around the world https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MVQ. The #2 gives railway=tram + railway=tram_crossing which seems to be a needless repetition -- a tautology. It's easy to deduce that a crossing on the tramway track is a crossing of the tramway track, isn't it? A rather similar dilemma exists with the highway crossings of tramways and in a similar proportion: #1. railway=tram + railway=level_crossing #2. railway=tram + railway=tram_level_crossing The OSM wiki says "Any tags you like" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like. But I think there is a problem when someone is meticulously removing on a large scale the scheme #1 in favour of the scheme #2, like in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/73460862. During the last couple of months two major cities in Russia: Moscow and St. Petersburg were "converted" like this by a couple of editors. As far as I could see the tags railway=tram_crossing and railway=tram_level_crossing were never officially approved or discussed, perhaps it's time for the proponents of this scheme to come along with their reasoning. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
Considering the responses it may be better to give a more definite criteria for using this tag. In this regard the definition of leisure=sunbathing as *any* popular place suitable for sunbathing looks rather vague. It could be more easily also used as a trolltag. So, how is about using leisure=sunbathing only for designated locations? This also would allow to simplify tagging by avoiding optional sunbathing=* proposed earlier. I've amended the proposal accordingly. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing
dieterdreist wrote > you might want to refer to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nudism > as suitable combination. The difference with the nudism=* key though is that leisure=sunbathing is supposed for tagging of a self-sufficient area which may be a part of some larger area like a beach or a leisure=beach_resort or it may be completely "stand-alone" area, dissociated of any hierarchy. Would it be useful to add something like sunbathing=* if needed? value description designated designated for sunbathing by authorities or a property owner customary popular place for sunbathing no prohibited, asking for trouble, or unsuitable, for example due to the natural properties of a place yes optional, not really useful, mere leisure=sunbathing is enough A pretty printed version is at the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/sunbathing#Optional_sunbathing.3D.2A -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
