Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[Matthijs Melissen]

Thank you for all feedback. The feedback brought forward a couple of
valuable points, but in my opinion these points don't require a change
to the proposal. In particular, I don't think it's useful to
explicitly state in the proposal whether or not customer parking
should be included, and will leave this decision to the individual
mapper. I also think aquatics centres are distinct enough from regular
sport centres to warrant their own tag. The discussion on civic
landuse is independent of this proposal. Thanks again for all input!

-- Matthijs

On 25 December 2015 at 21:42, Matthijs Melissen
 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have created a proposal page for the tag leisure=aquatics_centre:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Aquatics_centre
>
> The proposal is deliberately rather basic and does not contain a lot
> of documentation on suggested subtags, as I'd prefer to focus the
> discussion on the acceptance of the main tag, rather than getting lost
> in a discussion concerning countless subtags for special cases.
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> -- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 29.12.2015 um 10:43 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer :
> 
> New Urbanism, a conservative retro movement of which besides other the Prince 
> of Wales is a big fan, and which being more than 30 years old isn't quite 
> "new" any more)


sorry, wanted to write "reactionary" ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 26.12.2015 um 22:21 schrieb John Willis :
> 
> - but so many of the aquatics centers are going to be part of larger public 
> facilities like recreation centers or other civic complexes. 
> 
> Another good example why we need a government/civic/something landuse(s).


no, IMHO we should have distinct tags for recreation_centres, civic_complexes 
or whatever these entities are, landuses are not objects, they are attributes 
for pieces of ground. If something is part of another thing, we can easily 
model this by having something inside something else, but we need tags for each 
of these somethings, and landuse is not a good tag for a "thing" (IMHO)

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 26.12.2015 um 22:21 schrieb John Willis :
> 
> Obviously the private facilities are landuse commercial (they are a company).


it is not obvious (e.g. all retail facilities are companies as well, but are 
tagged with landuse=retail). Frankly, landuse tagging is not working very well 
in general for all areas that don't follow the separation of function paradigm, 
an idea of the 30ies/40ies (see charta of Athens, le Corbusier), which wasn't 
acted accordingly before and which got disputed also at least since the 1980ies 
(e.g. New Urbanism, a conservative retro movement of which besides other the 
Prince of Wales is a big fan, and which being more than 30 years old isn't 
quite "new" any more). We should likely introduce more values to account for 
different realities than the North American / modernist one.


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 29.12.2015 um 00:09 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> 
> Much rather have sports_centre=athletics;ball_sports  ... combinations using 
> ';' ... I know some don't like that .. but it makes the detail of what 
> 'multi' actually is.


I agree that the well established "multi" value from the early days is not very 
helpful, as it can be anything from a very big variety of sports centres.
sports_centre=* on the other hand doesn't auto explain itself, other than 
generalized  sport types it could just as well have values like "school", 
"event_venue", "commercial"(that's an actual value), ...
http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/sports_centre


cheers,
Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 29.12.2015 um 00:25 schrieb johnw :
> 
> Perhaps more detail on the court..  because having sport:1=foo sport:2=bar  
> or sport=foo;bar devolves into endless permutations - both in the data and 
> discussions. 


the attribute solution is
sport:basketball=yes/dedicated...
sport:volleyball=yes
...

or maybe superimpose/overlap different pitches each with there own sport tag? 
This would somehow be very close to reality (different coloured markings with 
slightly different sizes, on the same surface).


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[Warin]

On 29/12/2015 10:25 AM, johnw wrote:


On Dec 29, 2015, at 8:09 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


sports_centre=ball_sports


Perhaps there needs to be more detail on the field - a field type can 
tell you what can be done - we do that with “tennis courts” or 
“baseball diamond” - but for grass pitches and indoor wooden courts - 
it is almost all endless permutations of what could actually be done 
on them.


Perhaps more detail on the court..  because having sport:1=foo 
sport:2=bar  or sport=foo;bar devolves into endless permutations - 
both in the data and discussions.


Usually the pitches are of different sizes/shapes. So I tag each pitch 
.. and each pitch has a separate sport. A tennis court fits inside a 
basketball court for instance.


Exceptions;
Basketball and netball courts are almost the same size .. so they 
coexist in some places.
Grassed areas may be reconfigured from season to season thus the pitches 
move around. I simply pick the one shown on the present imagery, that is 
a 'representation' of what is on the ground .. even reconfigured the 
number of courts will be about the same even if moved around.



Javbw


___
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[johnw]

> On Dec 29, 2015, at 8:09 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> sports_centre=ball_sports

Perhaps there needs to be more detail on the field - a field type can tell you 
what can be done - we do that with “tennis courts” or “baseball diamond” - but 
for grass pitches and indoor wooden courts - it is almost all endless 
permutations of what could actually be done on them. 

Perhaps more detail on the court..  because having sport:1=foo sport:2=bar  or 
sport=foo;bar devolves into endless permutations - both in the data and 
discussions. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[Warin]

On 26/12/2015 7:41 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

tomoya muramoto wrote on 2015/12/26 00:40:

Hi,

I made a drawing comparison of 
aquatics_centre/sports_centre/water_park tagging. Is this correct?


That would be my understanding as well.

However we might need to explore if an aquatics_centre is a specific kind
of a sports_centre, thus we could also introduce a hierarchical tag like:

leisure=sports_centre
  +
  sports_centre=aquatics
  or
  sports_centre=athletics
  or
  sports_centre=ball_sports
  or
  sports_centre=multi
  etc


Much rather have sports_centre=athletics;ball_sports  ... combinations 
using ';' ... I know some don't like that .. but it makes the detail of 
what 'multi' actually is.


Where a 'sport' is involved there is a tag that should be used to 
indicate the sport. So all the water and ground sports should have this 
tag too.

e.g.
sports_centre=ball_sports
sport=netball;basketball;soccer





___
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[John Willis]

> On Dec 26, 2015, at 9:30 PM, Matthijs Melissen  
> wrote:
> 
> For indoor aquatics centres, I can imagine the leisure=aquatics_centre
> would normally be placed on the building.

This comes back to the landuse=civic  (civic_admin /civic_services) discussion. 

Obviously the private facilities are landuse commercial (they are a company). 
But the pool where I learned to swim was part of a large public recreation 
center (with a community hall, event complex, and baseball field). It is 
singularly named, and not a commercial landuse. Each building has its own name, 
but the complex does too - and it is not a company. 

Of course naming the pool building or the small landuse it sits on as an 
Aquatics Centre (like the London one with all the amenities that belong to the 
complex) is easy - but so many of the aquatics centers are going to be part of 
larger public facilities like recreation centers or other civic complexes. 

Another good example why we need a government/civic/something landuse(s). 

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 25 December 2015 at 22:38, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> What about parkings for customers? Given that it is typical associated
> amenity it may be a good idea to also list it after "small cafe or
> bar".

I had a look at the data, but for comparable facilities such as water
parks, sport centres and theme parks, the parking area is usually not
included in the areea. I don't think it makes sense to suddenly
deviate from the current practice, so I will not explicitly require
parking areas to be included in the area in my proposal.

For indoor aquatics centres, I can imagine the leisure=aquatics_centre
would normally be placed on the building.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[John Willis]

> On Dec 26, 2015, at 8:40 AM, tomoya muramoto  wrote:
> 
> I made a drawing

Looks great! 

Thanks for good diagram. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[Tom Pfeifer]

tomoya muramoto wrote on 2015/12/26 00:40:

Hi,

I made a drawing comparison of aquatics_centre/sports_centre/water_park 
tagging. Is this correct?


That would be my understanding as well.

However we might need to explore if an aquatics_centre is a specific kind
of a sports_centre, thus we could also introduce a hierarchical tag like:

leisure=sports_centre
  +
  sports_centre=aquatics
  or
  sports_centre=athletics
  or
  sports_centre=ball_sports
  or
  sports_centre=multi
  etc

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[tomoya muramoto]

Hi,

I made a drawing comparison of aquatics_centre/sports_centre/water_park
tagging. Is this correct?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/35pq8kcld1a9ptj/OSM_aquatics_centre_tagging.svg?dl=0

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[Tom Pfeifer]

Mateusz Konieczny wrote on 2015/12/25 22:38:

"The tag should be used for the entire facility, including all swimming
pools, changing rooms, showers, and perhaps a small cafe or bar."

What about parkings for customers? Given that it is typical associated
amenity it may be a good idea to also list it after "small cafe or
bar".


Yes, maybe:

"The tag should be used for the entire campus of the facility, including all 
swimming
pools, changing rooms, showers, related catering, green areas, and auxiliary 
functions
such as parking and maintenance buildings."

tom

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 21:42:06 +0100
Matthijs Melissen  wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I have created a proposal page for the tag leisure=aquatics_centre:
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Aquatics_centre
> 
> The proposal is deliberately rather basic and does not contain a lot
> of documentation on suggested subtags, as I'd prefer to focus the
> discussion on the acceptance of the main tag, rather than getting lost
> in a discussion concerning countless subtags for special cases.
> 
> Please let me know what you think.
> 
> -- Matthijs

"The tag should be used for the entire facility, including all swimming
pools, changing rooms, showers, and perhaps a small cafe or bar."

What about parkings for customers? Given that it is typical associated
amenity it may be a good idea to also list it after "small cafe or
bar".

For example see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.06800&mlon=19.90093#map=18/50.06800/19.90093


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

I have created a proposal page for the tag leisure=aquatics_centre:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Aquatics_centre

The proposal is deliberately rather basic and does not contain a lot
of documentation on suggested subtags, as I'd prefer to focus the
discussion on the acceptance of the main tag, rather than getting lost
in a discussion concerning countless subtags for special cases.

Please let me know what you think.

-- Matthijs

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