Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

> On Apr 12, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > > So what are you going to use/propose ? landcover or man_made ? > Curious, because I want to correct my mapping. I Have been thinking about it a lot, and I think we need two separate tags - one for the object and one

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

sent from a phone > On 12. Apr 2018, at 11:28, Marc Gemis wrote: > > So what are you going to use/propose ? landcover or man_made ? if I had to choose a value for landcover I would use “flowers”, similar to “trees” or “grass” cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

So what are you going to use/propose ? landcover or man_made ? Curious, because I want to correct my mapping. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:01 AM, John Willis wrote: > > >> On Apr 12, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer >> wrote: >> >> landuses don’t refer

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

> On Apr 12, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > landuses don’t refer to features like a house or a supermarket, they refer to > a purpose/activity class like retail, residential, industrial or commercial. Yea, you got me on that one. You are right

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

> On Apr 12, 2018, at 4:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > I thought you also agreed they could be seen as a kind of garden? It isn’t > the only possibility, one might also see them as a kind of park, or maybe > even a kind of meadow, but my choice, from what I

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

sent from a phone > On 12. Apr 2018, at 02:54, John Willis wrote: > > A flower park is not a farm either. The purpose of the land is still to grow > ornamental flowers for enjoying their beauty there. I thought you also agreed they could be seen as a kind of garden? It isn’t

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

sent from a phone > On 12. Apr 2018, at 02:54, John Willis wrote: > > You can't nest landuses? We nest every other type of area. we don’t nest every type of area, for example we don’t nest buildings, nor do we nest admin boundaries of the same admin level. cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

If it is not landuse=flower_bed,what is the landuse tag then ? The land is used for something, not ? So even when you tag it as landcover (or man_made) = flower_bed, I would still expect to be able to add a landuse tag as well. m. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

Javbw > On Apr 11, 2018, at 7:37 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > An area with decorative flowers organized and presented in flowerbeds, with > visitors and maybe a fee, will be something, like a flower show, with a name, > maybe a website etc. That is the

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

2018-04-11 11:30 GMT+02:00 John Willis : > Actual flower Farms are landuse=farmland crop=flowers. Yea, they may have > a viewpoint and a gift shop. But those large commercial farms are not what > I'm talking about. > > These are about tagging the actual beds of decorative flowers

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

> On Apr 10, 2018, at 11:09 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > they are. A flowerbed is about something human made. What you have been > posting is a forest +1 There are many natural spectacles (the fall colors on the mountains, certian flowers that grow on wild

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

Actual flower Farms are landuse=farmland crop=flowers. Yea, they may have a viewpoint and a gift shop. But those large commercial farms are not what I'm talking about. These are about tagging the actual beds of decorative flowers with landuse=flowerbed (which I think is totally a landuse - it

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

sent from a phone > On 10. Apr 2018, at 07:37, Marc Gemis wrote: > > Not all "flowerbeds" that are tourist attractions are human made. they are. A flowerbed is about something human made. What you have been posting is a forest. Maybe the term flower field could apply

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

sent from a phone > On 10. Apr 2018, at 02:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > =-O Is it really a 'landuse'? Or better as a 'landcover'? IMHO it is neither. I would see those flowerbeds that are part of a road or square as landuse=highway. Those in a park are part of the park

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

As mentioned earlier (maybe a year ago) in a similar thread on flowers/flowerbeds, I mapped quite a few of them: http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/nl/map/rozentuin-rose-garden-vrijbroekpark_21719#18/51.02054/4.46236 As said back then, I am willing to retag them when something betters turns up. Nothing

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

Not all "flowerbeds" that are tourist attractions are human made. The Hallerbos near Brussels is famous for its bluebells [1], which are only carrying flowers for a couple of weeks. Outside this period, the forest remains a nice place to walk, but is not really a tourist attraction anymore I

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

In John Wills original post he talked about tulip farms. These are tourist attractions around me, but really it's about farming. Around me they plant tulips to harvest the bulbs with a side business of tourism. Farming is different than gardens. Both are valid. Clifford -- @osm_seattle

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

On 10/04/18 09:51, John Willis wrote: On Apr 10, 2018, at 5:47 AM, John Willis > wrote: landuse=flowerbed Although I searched the wiki and didn’t find the page I was looking for — when I googled for it, I found a “defacto” page made for

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

> On Apr 10, 2018, at 5:47 AM, John Willis wrote: > > landuse=flowerbed Although I searched the wiki and didn’t find the page I was looking for — when I googled for it, I found a “defacto” page made for landuse=flowerbed. 1200 uses.

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

During this discussion it is evident That we need a macro "venue" tag *And* A micromapping "flower bed" tag together. let's take a Rose garden for example. The garden itself is one big landuse. The standard "garden" tag should suffice. Then there are all the little pieces inside. The paths,

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

2018-04-09 15:14 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć : > W dniu 09.04.2018 o 14:15, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze: > > maybe it could be tagged as garden with fee and a (new) subtype? For > reference, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:type > e.g. garden:type=garden_show or

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

W dniu 09.04.2018 o 14:15, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze: > maybe it could be tagged as garden with fee and a (new) subtype? For > reference, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:type > e.g. garden:type=garden_show or flower_show There's also another property of gardens and it sounds

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

2018-04-09 13:47 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout : > But we're not talking about either farmland or a crop in this case. The > flowers (or flowerbed, if you prefer) I'm talking about is actually a > tourist attraction and is maintained for that purpose. > maybe it could be

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

2018-04-09 13:43 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć : > Maybe it sounds strange, but when analyzing the meaning of "garden" in > OSM to make osm-carto rendering sane, I have found that size can vary a > lot. It can be as small as flowerbed (but there are other plants than > only flowers - this

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

But we're not talking about either farmland or a crop in this case. The flowers (or flowerbed, if you prefer) I'm talking about is actually a tourist attraction and is maintained for that purpose. On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2018-04-09

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

W dniu 09.04.2018 o 02:28, John Willis pisze: > Flowerbed? seems a little weird to tag 3000m2 as a flowerbed. But if > it is approved I will use it. Maybe it sounds strange, but when analyzing the meaning of "garden" in OSM to make osm-carto rendering sane, I have found that size can vary a lot.

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

2018-04-09 13:08 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:50:50 + > Dave Swarthout wrote: > > > How about > > tourism=attraction > > attraction=flowers > > I think that man_made=flowerbed + tourism=attraction would be > preferable,

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:50:50 + Dave Swarthout wrote: > How about > tourism=attraction > attraction=flowers I think that man_made=flowerbed + tourism=attraction would be preferable, it would allow tagging also flower fields that are not a tourism attraction at all.

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

2018-04-09 9:32 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes : > A museum just needs standard opening hours tagging. > > then you wouldn't be able to distinguish between a museum that is a tourist attraction only when open and one that is an attraction also when closed. ;-) Cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

On 04/09/2018 01:35 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> On 9. Apr 2018, at 08:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> humm ... for me it is only an attraction when in flower. So would >> need some seasonal tagging with the tourism tag? > > > > Following this logics, what about museums,

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

A museum just needs standard opening hours tagging. The start of a flower season will vary from year to year. This year everything is really late. Phil (trigpoint) On 9 April 2018 07:35:07 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > >sent from a phone > >> On 9. Apr 2018,

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

sent from a phone > On 9. Apr 2018, at 08:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > humm ... for me it is only an attraction when in flower. So would need some > seasonal tagging with the tourism tag? Following this logics, what about museums, aren’t they only attractions when open,

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

humm ... for me it is only an attraction when in flower. So would need some seasonal tagging with the tourism tag? Flowers can be part of agriculture - grown for sale in florist shops for example. On 09/04/18 11:50, Dave Swarthout wrote: How about tourism=attraction attraction=flowers

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

How about tourism=attraction attraction=flowers There are similar areas in Thailand for sunflowers. On Mon, Apr 9, 2018, 7:29 AM John Willis wrote: > TL:DR - we need a “flower field” tag or a variant of flowerbed. tat is > not related to farming, but more to garden or tourism.

[Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

TL:DR - we need a “flower field” tag or a variant of flowerbed. tat is not related to farming, but more to garden or tourism. This is a tag for the field itself, not the entire location, which may need a garden:type=spectacle value to define it.