Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Erik Johansson wrote: > We all know "don't tag for the renderer" mantra, repeating it is > pointless. Or at least repeat it with the appropriate nuances: "Don't use semantically incorrect tags to achieve a short term goal based on the current behaviour of one particular renderer." > I'm pointing out that this is neither objectively an > attraction nor a shelter, To the extent that tourist attractions "objectively" exist, most of these huts would qualify. Not sure I really want to argue this point though. > Sure you can micro map it, but it's really too much work to tag it like this: I'm not sure how many of these huts there are - maybe 100 or so. It's not really a question of "too much work" - I'm happy to add whatever tags are necessary to make the data useful to the widest range of renderers etc. They're very small though, and usually outside the range of high quality imagery, so not likely to get mapped as areas. > So you are probably going to end up with a one node solution, one > could also call it > > disused:amenity=shelter > shelter_type=weather_shelter > tourism=attraction > name="Smith hut (ruins)" > note="historic feature built blablabla see more about smith huts" Yup. (Although probably not "ruins" and "weather_shelter" on the same hut...) > My view is that many tags in OSM are either too specific or too > general, alpine_hut/tucan crossing/pelican crossing/basc_shelter are > to specific and tourism=attraction might be too general. Going after > Steves description I'm not sure I would like to discover this when I > went to find a hut. Yeah, that's the cultural expectation thing I referred to earlier. Australians do not expect to find staff huts when they go hiking, and interpret hut symbols on maps appropriately. (And it still confuses me every time I go hiking in Europe!) IMHO this is ok - semantics can vary slightly by region. No? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
I don't know, they seems to be in pretty bad shape a lot worse than the ones depicted in the wiki. On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > > Am 29/mar/2013 um 09:37 schrieb Erik Johansson : > >> I'm pointing out that this is neither objectively an >> attraction nor a shelter, > > > From what the op wrote it seems these are shelters. > > > Cheers, > Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
Am 29/mar/2013 um 09:37 schrieb Erik Johansson : > I'm pointing out that this is neither objectively an > attraction nor a shelter, >From what the op wrote it seems these are shelters. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Andreas Labres wrote: > On 28.03.13 11:18, Erik Johansson wrote: >> This sounds more like an tourism attraction than a hut though > > If it is a tourism attraction tag it as tourism=attraction (that's what I > said). > > But don't tag it for this reason: "to increase the chance that the historic=* > actually renders as something...". We all know "don't tag for the renderer" mantra, repeating it is pointless. I'm pointing out that this is neither objectively an attraction nor a shelter, and also it is in the intersection between macro and micromapping.. Sure you can micro map it, but it's really too much work to tag it like this: node: building=hut tourism=attraction name="Smith Hut (ruins)" note="historic feature built blablabla see more about smith huts" node: tourism=camp_site backcountry=yes impromptu=yes So you are probably going to end up with a one node solution, one could also call it disused:amenity=shelter shelter_type=wather_shelter tourism=attraction name="Smith hut (ruins)" note="historic feature built blablabla see more about smith huts" My view is that many tags in OSM are either too specific or too general, alpine_hut/tucan crossing/pelican crossing/basc_shelter are to specific and tourism=attraction might be too general. Going after Steves description I'm not sure I would like to discover this when I went to find a hut. Increased chance to render is a great reason to tag something. /Erik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
On 28.03.13 11:25, Janko Mihelić wrote: > Tourism=attraction is quite an ambiguous tag. It is a good hint what to highlight on/in a tourist map/app. Of course this is a subjective decision, but it is of value that somebody did this decision. But not if it is based on "to increase the chance of rendering". /al ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
On 28.03.13 11:18, Erik Johansson wrote: > This sounds more like an tourism attraction than a hut though If it is a tourism attraction tag it as tourism=attraction (that's what I said). But don't tag it for this reason: "to increase the chance that the historic=* actually renders as something...". /al ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
2013/3/28 Andreas Labres > > Don't tag for the renderer! amenity=shelter by itself renders. Only tag it > as a > tourism=attraction if it /is/ a tourism attraction. Tourism=attraction is quite an ambiguous tag. What is attractive to tourists? Who decides that? I think that's more of a job for http://en.wikivoyage.org Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andreas Labres wrote: > On 28.03.13 06:45, Steve Bennett wrote: >> tourism=attraction (to increase the chance that the historic=* actually >> renders as something...) > > Don't tag for the renderer! amenity=shelter by itself renders. Only tag it as > a > tourism=attraction if it /is/ a tourism attraction. This sounds more like an tourism attraction than a hut though, i.e. tagging it as a hut will probably confuse things. But there is a clear interest in knowing that it's there. I would say use : camp_site, backcountry=yes, building=hut/shack and name="Smith Hut (ruins)", perhaps some special tag documenting it on the wiki with pictures/urls. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site /Erik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
On 28.03.13 06:45, Steve Bennett wrote: > tourism=attraction (to increase the chance that the historic=* actually > renders as something...) Don't tag for the renderer! amenity=shelter by itself renders. Only tag it as a tourism=attraction if it /is/ a tourism attraction. /al ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > looking at the tags maybe > historic=wilderness_hut would be better (according to a proposal and > the current wiki state, tourism=alpine_hut is for places where you can > get food and accomodation, while tourism=wilderness_hut is for places > that offer less comfort and are not usually managed, i.e. you bring > what you need). Seems sensible. Just noticed the (contradictory) tag shelter_type=* (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type). Maybe the right thing is: amenity=shelter (you can take refuge from the rain here) shelter_type=weather_shelter (seems to describe the current role of the hut, only for emergencies) historic=wilderness_hut (historically, people slept and cooked here) tourism=attraction (to increase the chance that the historic=* actually renders as something...) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
2013/3/27 Volker Schmidt : > What about: > amenity=shelter > historic=alpine_hut > ruins=yes (if appropriate) looking at the tags maybe historic=wilderness_hut would be better (according to a proposal and the current wiki state, tourism=alpine_hut is for places where you can get food and accomodation, while tourism=wilderness_hut is for places that offer less comfort and are not usually managed, i.e. you bring what you need). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/wilderness_mountain_buildings http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dwilderness_hut you could also add building=hut if you are adding the object as an area and you could have a look at the shelter_type tags if the hut can provide shelter: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shelter_type%3Dbasic_hut cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
The English/Scottish word for it is "bothy". But it might be better to use something a bit more internationally-intelligible. On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > What about: > amenity=shelter > historic=alpine_hut > ruins=yes (if appropriate) > > Volker > (Padova, Italy) > > > On 27 March 2013 05:16, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> Hi all, >> Just wondering how best to tag the historic "alpine" huts we have in >> the mountains of southeast Australia. Some basic properties: >> - usually fully enclosed (4 walls and a roof) although not necessarily >> weatherproof >> - usually have fireplaces >> - sometimes in good enough condition to sleep in (bring your own >> mattress and bedding) >> - primarily of historical interest, rather than for accommodation. >> That is, you might have lunch in the hut, or camp next to it - you >> wouldn't hike without a tent and plan to sleep in the huts. (They >> often have rodent and/or snake inhabitants...) >> - could possibly be completely uninhabitable or ruined. (Hiking maps >> here typically don't make much distinction, they might say "Smith Hut >> (ruins)") >> - typically built between 1850 and say 1920 by stockmen (cattle farmers). >> - only maintained for their heritage value - no one improves them, >> there's no hut warden or anything. >> >> Is this just an Australian thing? tourism=basic_hut seems like the >> closest, but still promises accommodation. I think most Australians >> would know what to expect, but there are frequent stories of unhappy >> Europeans expecting hot meals in the middle of nowhere... >> >> An example of a hut I visited on the weekend, Kelly Hut near Licola. >> Rough wooden walls, corrugated iron roof, stone chimney, dirt floor. >> There's a very rough sleeping platform (no mattresses), no table or >> chairs. The door is a sheet of corrugated iron. I'd have lunch in >> there, especially on a cold day, but I wouldn't sleep in there unless >> desperate. >> >> Steve >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
Hi! 2013/3/27 Volker Schmidt : > What about: > amenity=shelter > historic=alpine_hut > ruins=yes (if appropriate) Simple. Straight forward. Mostly established tags, besides the value of historic. +1 from me. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
What about: amenity=shelter historic=alpine_hut ruins=yes (if appropriate) Volker (Padova, Italy) On 27 March 2013 05:16, Steve Bennett wrote: > Hi all, > Just wondering how best to tag the historic "alpine" huts we have in > the mountains of southeast Australia. Some basic properties: > - usually fully enclosed (4 walls and a roof) although not necessarily > weatherproof > - usually have fireplaces > - sometimes in good enough condition to sleep in (bring your own > mattress and bedding) > - primarily of historical interest, rather than for accommodation. > That is, you might have lunch in the hut, or camp next to it - you > wouldn't hike without a tent and plan to sleep in the huts. (They > often have rodent and/or snake inhabitants...) > - could possibly be completely uninhabitable or ruined. (Hiking maps > here typically don't make much distinction, they might say "Smith Hut > (ruins)") > - typically built between 1850 and say 1920 by stockmen (cattle farmers). > - only maintained for their heritage value - no one improves them, > there's no hut warden or anything. > > Is this just an Australian thing? tourism=basic_hut seems like the > closest, but still promises accommodation. I think most Australians > would know what to expect, but there are frequent stories of unhappy > Europeans expecting hot meals in the middle of nowhere... > > An example of a hut I visited on the weekend, Kelly Hut near Licola. > Rough wooden walls, corrugated iron roof, stone chimney, dirt floor. > There's a very rough sleeping platform (no mattresses), no table or > chairs. The door is a sheet of corrugated iron. I'd have lunch in > there, especially on a cold day, but I wouldn't sleep in there unless > desperate. > > Steve > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Historic huts
Hi all, Just wondering how best to tag the historic "alpine" huts we have in the mountains of southeast Australia. Some basic properties: - usually fully enclosed (4 walls and a roof) although not necessarily weatherproof - usually have fireplaces - sometimes in good enough condition to sleep in (bring your own mattress and bedding) - primarily of historical interest, rather than for accommodation. That is, you might have lunch in the hut, or camp next to it - you wouldn't hike without a tent and plan to sleep in the huts. (They often have rodent and/or snake inhabitants...) - could possibly be completely uninhabitable or ruined. (Hiking maps here typically don't make much distinction, they might say "Smith Hut (ruins)") - typically built between 1850 and say 1920 by stockmen (cattle farmers). - only maintained for their heritage value - no one improves them, there's no hut warden or anything. Is this just an Australian thing? tourism=basic_hut seems like the closest, but still promises accommodation. I think most Australians would know what to expect, but there are frequent stories of unhappy Europeans expecting hot meals in the middle of nowhere... An example of a hut I visited on the weekend, Kelly Hut near Licola. Rough wooden walls, corrugated iron roof, stone chimney, dirt floor. There's a very rough sleeping platform (no mattresses), no table or chairs. The door is a sheet of corrugated iron. I'd have lunch in there, especially on a cold day, but I wouldn't sleep in there unless desperate. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
