Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts
2014-04-03 3:39 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com: 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
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
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
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 jan...@gmail.com 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 (emergency_shelter), type (lean_to) or level of
Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts
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
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 doerr.step...@gmail.com 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
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
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 lowfligh...@googlemail.com: 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
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 daveswarth...@gmail.com mailto:daveswarth...@gmail.com: 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
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 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-31 13:28 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com: 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 18:18 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com: @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
On 31.03.2014 18:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014-03-31 18:18 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com mailto:daveswarth...@gmail.com: @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
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 lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: On 31.03.2014 18:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014-03-31 18:18 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com mailto:daveswarth...@gmail.com: @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
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
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 lowfligh...@googlemail.com 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
