Re: [Tagging] Boot cleaning stations

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 30 June 2018 at 10:57, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 30/06/18 10:20, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Any other ideas as to words to use?
>>
>
> Disinfection?  Depends if they're just scrapers or if they include some
> antimicrobial/antifungal
> spray/dip.  The UK's DEFRA says of foot and mouth disease that farmers
> must have approved
> disinfectant and cleaning materials for essential visitors.  So are these
> serious jobs or just
> toys?
>
> Footwear_disinfection seems better than boot_disinfection, because you'll
> always get some idiot
> read "boot disinfection" and decide it doesn't apply to him because he's
> wearing trainers.  In any
> case, there will either be an icon or (probably) no icon and no text. :)
>
>
> The ones I am thinking of have disinfectant. However I'd accept ones that
> only go after seeds too. It just depends on what the object is.
> They are permanent installations. Foot and mouth ones tend to be portable
> for temporary use.
> They tend to be easy to use as if they are difficult they won't get used
> or used well and that would defeat the purpose. So not toys.
>
> 
> Now more inclined to man_made=footwear_disinfection ... really separates
> it from a simple polish.
>
>
How about

man_made=footwear_decontamination?

Makes it pretty obvious that you're just talking about getting them
polished!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Boot cleaning stations

[Warin]

On 30/06/18 10:20, Paul Allen wrote:


On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:



Any other ideas as to words to use?


Disinfection?  Depends if they're just scrapers or if they include 
some antimicrobial/antifungal
spray/dip.  The UK's DEFRA says of foot and mouth disease that farmers 
must have approved
disinfectant and cleaning materials for essential visitors.  So are 
these serious jobs or just

toys?

Footwear_disinfection seems better than boot_disinfection, because 
you'll always get some idiot
read "boot disinfection" and decide it doesn't apply to him because 
he's wearing trainers.  In any

case, there will either be an icon or (probably) no icon and no text. :)


The ones I am thinking of have disinfectant. However I'd accept ones 
that only go after seeds too. It just depends on what the object is.
They are permanent installations. Foot and mouth ones tend to be 
portable for temporary use.
They tend to be easy to use as if they are difficult they won't get used 
or used well and that would defeat the purpose. So not toys.


Link to the Tasmania ones 
https://www.nrmsouth.org.au/biosecurity/walkclean/

They look to use some 'veterinarian disinfectant F10sc'.

There are also some in Queensland, Western Australia and New Zealand. 
I'd think they would be present in other parts of the world too.


-
Rendering .. might only happen on the specific maps for walkers. That is 
fine.
The problem is 'off track' walkers ..they need to know where these 
things are so they can go to them before leaving a contaminated area.



Now more inclined to man_made=footwear_disinfection ... really separates 
it from a simple polish.



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

Re: [Tagging] Boot cleaning stations

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Any other ideas as to words to use?
>

Disinfection?  Depends if they're just scrapers or if they include some
antimicrobial/antifungal
spray/dip.  The UK's DEFRA says of foot and mouth disease that farmers must
have approved
disinfectant and cleaning materials for essential visitors.  So are these
serious jobs or just
toys?

Footwear_disinfection seems better than boot_disinfection, because you'll
always get some idiot
read "boot disinfection" and decide it doesn't apply to him because he's
wearing trainers.  In any
case, there will either be an icon or (probably) no icon and no text. :)

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

Re: [Tagging] Boot cleaning stations

[Warin]

On 29/06/18 19:50, Peter Elderson wrote:

Bless you, my son.


Thank you.


2018-06-29 11:45 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen >:


On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:03 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
> wrote:


man_made=boot_cleansing ??


Seems about as good as anything else.  Not really leisure or
amenity because it's not for fun and it's
more of a requirement than a lifestyle choice ("I think I need to
get my boots cleansed one day this week," or
"Let's go for an afternoon of boot cleansing").

One person has commented that it really is footwear cleansing .. to 
cover shoes, boots .. etc.




I used 'cleansing' rather than 'cleaning' to try and get away
from the beatification thing.


There's only one location where boot beatification could take
place.  But I doubt the Pope would do it.
Perhaps you meant beautification. :)

May be at the same time a tag for boot/shoe beatification
should be created so they are distinguishable in OSM and
mappers then have the choice rather than lumping them all in
together.


Assuming you meant beautification, then I'd agree.  If you
document it but nobody uses it then all you've wasted is a
few words in the wiki.  If you don't document it then people WILL
abuse your cleansing tag because it's the best fit
they can find (If the boot fits, beatify it).



Yes. I really do want to avoid the misuse of the tag by those who cannot 
be bothered to make a more correct tag.


The use of the term 'footwear' is too cumbersome, especially if 
translated into other languages. I'd like to keep it simple.
 In order to separate the two I like to distinguish them by using shoe 
for the beautification/cleaning and boot for the cleansing/purging.
The boot is usually seen as the more rugged of the two and usually taken 
as the thing used for bush-walking/tramping etc.


So possibly

man_made=shoe_cleaning

and

man_made=boot_cleansing
or
man_made=boot_purging

Any other ideas as to words to use?
I like that purging is a significantly different form from cleaning - 
leading to more visual separation between the two tags.




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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 6:37 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:
> When people are following the trail & arrive at a lake, would everybody use 
> the same route across the lake, or would you go straight across, while I 
> follow right round the shoreline?
>
> Assuming different people use different routes, would this effect any 
> possible routing?

It depends. Sometimes these ponds are very shallow, and a suggested
route will be shown to keep in deeper water. Sometimes, it's 'find
your own way.' In any case, you certainly will stray from the route -
just try to guide a canoe on a straight line on a windy day! The
really important thing is 'where do I beach the canoe for the next
portage?"

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 30 June 2018 at 02:37, Dave Swarthout  wrote:

>
> I tagged the route as a relation a long time ago (route=canoe) but was
> updating some areas lately and came across those untagged ways again and
> their invisibility began nagging at me. While I don't expect anybody to
> actually use a routing service to put together a wilderness trip at their
> desk, I want my work to be helpful for canoeists when following "the trail"
> as it weaves through myriad lakes, around islands, from put-in to take-out,
> for each leg of the route. If OSM-based maps don't show the lake crossings,
> how will users follow the parts of the route with the untagged ways? I'm
> unsure if such a route will be followable.
>

Dave, I know basically nothing about canoeing so please excuse a probably
dumb question!

When people are following the trail & arrive at a lake, would everybody use
the same route across the lake, or would you go straight across, while I
follow right round the shoreline?

Assuming different people use different routes, would this effect any
possible routing?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging religion-based access

[osm.tagging]

This right there is a major reason why it was a bad idea to allow 
“transportmode=accessvalue” and not always require 
“access:transportmode=accessvalue”…

 

From: Mateusz Konieczny  
Sent: Saturday, 30 June 2018 04:36
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging religion-based access

 

I thought about it but it is not clear that it refers to access. Also, it would 
cause problems

for anybody processing popular tags (like access) and not processing very rare 
new tags

(muslim).

 

For example

 

amenity=place_of_worship

muslim=yes

religion=muslim

access=no

 

would be quite unclear, with muslim=yes looking like duplicate of 
religion=muslim.

 

 

 

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging religion-based access

[Mateusz Konieczny]

access=designated is meaningless and usually nonsense.
It means that all access types are designated, except specified otherwise what 
generally is not happening.

29. Jun 2018 21:33 by cliff...@snowandsnow.us :


> Another alternative, without having to introduce a new value, would be 
> access=designated. 
>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging religion-based access

[Erkin Alp Güney]

islam=only.


29-06-2018 21:35 tarihinde Mateusz Konieczny yazdı:
> I thought about it but it is not clear that it refers to access. Also,
> it would cause problems
> for anybody processing popular tags (like access) and not processing
> very rare new tags
> (muslim).
>
> For example
>
> amenity=place_of_worship
> muslim=yes
> religion=muslim
> access=no
>
> would be quite unclear, with muslim=yes looking like duplicate of
> religion=muslim.
>
> 29. Jun 2018 20:32 by t...@fitchdesign.com :
>
> Maybe something like
>
> access=no
> muslim=yes
>
> better fit the existing schemes for tagging access?
>
>
> On Jun 29, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Mateusz Konieczny
> mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:
>
> I thought about muslim_only=yes tag.
>
>
> 27. Jun 2018 12:50 by matkoni...@tutanota.com
> :
>
> Is there some established way to tag religion-based access
> restrictions?
>
> For example in Morocco only Muslims may enter a typical
> mosque.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] tagging religion-based access

[Clifford Snow]

Another alternative, without having to introduce a new value, would be
access=designated.

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:44 AM Stephen Doerr 
wrote:

> How about:
>
> amenity=place_of_worship
> religion=muslim
> access=adherents
>
> ?
>
>
> On 29 June 2018, at 19:36, Mateusz Konieczny 
> wrote:
>
>
> I thought about it but it is not clear that it refers to access. Also, it
> would cause problems
> for anybody processing popular tags (like access) and not processing very
> rare new tags
> (muslim).
>
> For example
>
> amenity=place_of_worship
> muslim=yes
> religion=muslim
> access=no
>
> would be quite unclear, with muslim=yes looking like duplicate of
> religion=muslim.
>
> 29. Jun 2018 20:32 by t...@fitchdesign.com:
>
> Maybe something like
>
> access=no
> muslim=yes
>
> better fit the existing schemes for tagging access?
>
>
> On Jun 29, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Mateusz Konieczny 
> wrote:
>
> I thought about muslim_only=yes tag.
>
>
> 27. Jun 2018 12:50 by matkoni...@tutanota.com:
>
> Is there some established way to tag religion-based access restrictions?
>
> For example in Morocco only Muslims may enter a typical mosque.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging religion-based access

[Stephen Doerr]

How about:

amenity=place_of_worship
religion=muslim
access=adherents

?


On 29 June 2018, at 19:36, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:

I thought about it but it is not clear that it refers to access. Also, it would 
cause problems

for anybody processing popular tags (like access) and not processing very rare 
new tags

(muslim).


For example


amenity=place_of_worship

muslim=yes

religion=muslim

access=no


would be quite unclear, with muslim=yes looking like duplicate of 
religion=muslim.


29. Jun 2018 20:32 by t...@fitchdesign.com:

Maybe something like


access=no

muslim=yes


better fit the existing schemes for tagging access?



On Jun 29, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:


I thought about muslim_only=yes tag.


27. Jun 2018 12:50 by matkoni...@tutanota.com:

Is there some established way to tag religion-based access restrictions?


For example in Morocco only Muslims may enter a typical mosque.


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging religion-based access

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I thought about it but it is not clear that it refers to access. Also, it would 
cause problemsfor anybody processing popular tags (like access) and not 
processing very rare new tags(muslim).
For example
amenity=place_of_worshipmuslim=yesreligion=muslimaccess=no

would be quite unclear, with muslim=yes looking like duplicate of 
religion=muslim.
29. Jun 2018 20:32 by t...@fitchdesign.com :


> Maybe something like
> access=no> muslim=yes
> better fit the existing schemes for tagging access?
>
>
>> On Jun 29, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <>> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
>> >> > wrote:
>>   >> I thought about muslim_only=yes tag.
>>
>>
>> 27. Jun 2018 12:50 by >> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
>> >> :
>>
>>
>>> >>> Is there some established way to tag religion-based access 
>>> restrictions?
>>> For example in Morocco only Muslims may enter a typical mosque.
>
>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging religion-based access

[Tod Fitch]

Maybe something like

access=no
muslim=yes

better fit the existing schemes for tagging access?


> On Jun 29, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Mateusz Konieczny  
> wrote:
> 
> I thought about muslim_only=yes tag.
> 
> 
> 27. Jun 2018 12:50 by matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> :
> 
> Is there some established way to tag religion-based access restrictions?
> 
> For example in Morocco only Muslims may enter a typical mosque.

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

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:38 PM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:
> I tagged the route as a relation a long time ago (route=canoe) but was
updating some areas lately and came across those untagged ways again and
their invisibility began nagging at me. While I don't expect anybody to
actually use a routing service to put together a wilderness trip at their
desk, I want my work to be helpful for canoeists when following "the trail"
as it weaves through myriad lakes, around islands, from put-in to take-out,
for each leg of the route. If OSM-based maps don't show the lake crossings,
how will users follow the parts of the route with the untagged ways? I'm
unsure if such a route will be followable. Does anyone know how to test it
for routablity?


I usually just scroll down through the list of members in JOSM's relation
editor and check for continuity (The 'Zoom to Next Gap' function on the
right-click is also useful here.)

I can't run JOSM here at work so I was going to demonstrate continuity
checking using the stand-alone tool at http://ra.osmsurround.org/ - and
using the worked example of the Northville-Placid, I found that it's broken
at the moment: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=4286650 .
(The 'Analyze on Map' button shows exactly where!) I'll try and get that
fixed over the weekend. (I'm also not at all sure how I feel about
replacing surveyed data with a Strava consensus, but I concede that
individual GPS tracks might be wonky. It's not obvious to me that Strava
would be any better on a little-traveled trail like that, though!

http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=6198495&_noCache=on is
a route=hiking relation that isn't broken.

If you look at either of those relations on hiking.waymarkedtrails.org,
you'll see that they're rendered. The Waymarked Trails site also has the
capability to download individual routs as GPX files. If Lonvia were to add
canoe routes, you'd see them render and be able to download GPX segments as
well.

I suspect that the relation you're concerned with is
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3568086 - which, you can see, is all
there in the database.  It's not going to work using the model that
Waymarked Trails uses, because it's not a single route, it's a whole
network. If you were to break it up into individual linear routes, I would
imagine that it would work just fine, and ra.osmsurround.org would handle
them just fine. RIght now
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=3568086&_noCache=on
shows the mess that I'd expect.  Analyzing on the map shows
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=3568086 . There are a lot
of endpoints. For a typical route there will be just two -
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=5595974 is pretty typical
of what I'd expect a canoe route to look like, and
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=5595974&_noCache=on
likes it.

There probably shouldn't be completely untagged ways. For the portions of
the route that cross open water, I'd probably use route=canoe on the way as
well as the relation, by analogy with route=ferry. Completely untagged ways
introduce fragility, since a way could be shared among more than one route.
(They're appropriate for multipolygon boundaries, and an untagged way that
isn't part of a multipolygon is highly likely to be detritus.)

You could try running https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/zWA to see what others
have done with canoe route relations. (Tracking down the people who edited
them is also a way of finding out who is in that constituency among the
mappers.)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging religion-based access

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I thought about muslim_only=yes tag.


27. Jun 2018 12:50 by matkoni...@tutanota.com :


> > Is there some established way to tag religion-based access restrictions?
> For example in Morocco only Muslims may enter a typical mosque.
>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

[Dave Swarthout]

Thanks all for the feedback. I was away all day yesterday so excuse this
late reply.

I tagged the route as a relation a long time ago (route=canoe) but was
updating some areas lately and came across those untagged ways again and
their invisibility began nagging at me. While I don't expect anybody to
actually use a routing service to put together a wilderness trip at their
desk, I want my work to be helpful for canoeists when following "the trail"
as it weaves through myriad lakes, around islands, from put-in to take-out,
for each leg of the route. If OSM-based maps don't show the lake crossings,
how will users follow the parts of the route with the untagged ways? I'm
unsure if such a route will be followable. Does anyone know how to test it
for routablity?

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:22 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:42 PM Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
> > I've asked this question before on OpenStreetMap Help and mapped the
> route as suggested. (
> https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/31449/how-do-i-map-a-canoe-route).
> I've mapped the portages where one carries the canoe as highway=footpath
> but the water portions of the route do not show up in OSM or OSMAnd. The
> canoe route is the Swan Lake Canoe Trail. There is a portion of it here (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/60.7101/-150.6839) where one can
> see the footway portions, the portages, but the untagged ways crossing the
> lakes are invisible. The ways are included in my route relation but I'm at
> a loss as to how to tag them so they exist as a part of the route.
> >
> > AFAIK, existing canoe routes use waterway tags to indicate the water
> portions of the routes, e.g., waterway=stream, but the routes I'm working
> on pass through lakes. There is no stream involved, nor is there a footway
> across the lakes.
> >
> > I know I'm raising the specter of tagging for the renderer but if the
> water portions of this route aren't visible or findable, how would a
> routing engine or a GPS make use of them? How should I tag those ways that
> cross the lakes?
>
> I don't know of any specialty map - yet - that does rendering of canoe
> routes. But I'd tag the thing as a route relation, with both waterway=* and
> footway=* segments. route=canoe would make sense, and for many specialty
> maps, it would want to have name, network, and ref. (For ref, for many
> shorter hiking routes, I just use the initials of the trail, and 'lwn'
> [local walking network] for network.
>
> If there's a plan to tag a bunch of these, I bet it would be possible to
> interest Lonvia https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/help/contact in adding
> a 'canoe' mode to Waymarked Trails, which might very well be the easiest
> path to getting rendered, integrated mapping for it. She already has
> 'hiking', 'cycling', 'riding', 'skating' and 'ski' modes, so I can't
> imagine that 'canoe' would be much harder.
>
> If you're unclear on how to construct a route relation, Northville-Placid
> Trail, which I know you're familiar with since we've corresponded about it,
> is built as one and is fairly simple. It couldn't be a single way, both
> because it's too big and because it shares the way with roads or other
> trails at various points.
> https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=4286650 is the WMT display
> of it (click on the gear at the bottom center of the screen and change the
> base map to Open Topo Map!)  and
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4286650 is the corresponding
> display in OSM proper.
>
> If you can't find anyone else interested in rendering it, I could maybe
> have a go. I'd use something like
> https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=43.2910&lo=-74.3641&z=12
> (since that rendering already works) as a basemap, and then overlay your
> routes as heavy lines in some sort of bright colour. But I'd really prefer
> to have it hosted somewhere other than my home office!
>
> I don't think anyone's invented a canoe routing engine, and in general,
> the mind boggles at using a routing engine for a backcountry trip: the trip
> planning is part of the fun! Did you have, instead, a navigation system in
> mind? A lot of systems are capable of reducing a route, or a concatenation
> of route segments, down to a single multiline and telling a GPS,' Follow
> this!" That's different from 'try to find me the most efficient (by some
> metric) route from point A to point B."
>


-- 
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] Boot cleaning stations

[Peter Elderson]

Bless you, my son.

2018-06-29 11:45 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :

> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:03 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> man_made=boot_cleansing ??
>>
>
> Seems about as good as anything else.  Not really leisure or amenity
> because it's not for fun and it's
> more of a requirement than a lifestyle choice ("I think I need to get my
> boots cleansed one day this week," or
> "Let's go for an afternoon of boot cleansing").
>
> I used 'cleansing' rather than 'cleaning' to try and get away from the
>> beatification thing.
>>
>
> There's only one location where boot beatification could take place.  But
> I doubt the Pope would do it.
> Perhaps you meant beautification. :)
>
>
>> May be at the same time a tag for boot/shoe beatification should be
>> created so they are distinguishable in OSM and mappers then have the choice
>> rather than lumping them all in together.
>>
>
> Assuming you meant beautification, then I'd agree.  If you document it but
> nobody uses it then all you've wasted is a
> few words in the wiki.  If you don't document it then people WILL abuse
> your cleansing tag because it's the best fit
> they can find (If the boot fits, beatify it).
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Boot cleaning stations

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:03 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> man_made=boot_cleansing ??
>

Seems about as good as anything else.  Not really leisure or amenity
because it's not for fun and it's
more of a requirement than a lifestyle choice ("I think I need to get my
boots cleansed one day this week," or
"Let's go for an afternoon of boot cleansing").

I used 'cleansing' rather than 'cleaning' to try and get away from the
> beatification thing.
>

There's only one location where boot beatification could take place.  But I
doubt the Pope would do it.
Perhaps you meant beautification. :)


> May be at the same time a tag for boot/shoe beatification should be
> created so they are distinguishable in OSM and mappers then have the choice
> rather than lumping them all in together.
>

Assuming you meant beautification, then I'd agree.  If you document it but
nobody uses it then all you've wasted is a
few words in the wiki.  If you don't document it then people WILL abuse
your cleansing tag because it's the best fit
they can find (If the boot fits, beatify it).

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