Re: [Tagging] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?
OK, reopening this thread: previously there were 2 or 3 people initially in favor of using bbq=yes (already used about 200 times) to specify that "there is a permanently installed barbecue grill at this feature", for use on picnic sites and campsites. However, later there were 2 people who preferred the tag barbecue_grill=yes (slightly more common still), because it was clearer that this is the presence of a grill, not permission to bring your own grill. It was noted that amenity=bbq has sometimes been used in both ways: usually to specify that there is a bbq grill at the location, but also sometimes for places where you are allowed to bbq with your own grill. Any more opinions on this? I would like to be able to propose a tag as part of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Campsite_properties - or perhaps it should be a separate proposale, since this is one of the tags that does not yet have a clear consensus? Joseph On 7/6/19, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Re: > basic picnic tables where you can provide your own mini grill > > It looks like we can propose "bring_own_bbq=yes" for that situation > > Re: > some fixed on a post grills > > Do you think this should be "bbq=yes" or "barbecue_grill=yes"? > > -Joseph > > On 7/6/19, Nita S. wrote: >> One caravan park I am familiar with has three types: basic picnic tables >> where you can provide your own mini grill, some fixed on a post grills, >> and >> a single large motorized rotating spit type grill. > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?
Re: > basic picnic tables where you can provide your own mini grill It looks like we can propose "bring_own_bbq=yes" for that situation Re: > some fixed on a post grills Do you think this should be "bbq=yes" or "barbecue_grill=yes"? -Joseph On 7/6/19, Nita S. wrote: > One caravan park I am familiar with has three types: basic picnic tables > where you can provide your own mini grill, some fixed on a post grills, and > a single large motorized rotating spit type grill. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 16:27, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Should we use bbq=yes or barbecue_grill=yes with campsites, caravan > sites and camp pitches to specify the presence of a grill that can be > used for bbq / grilling? > I would go for barbecue_grill=yes to show that there is "something" provded. bbq=yes means that you are allowed to cook outside your caravan / tent, usually using your own gas bbq Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?
Another user added bring_own_bbq=yes as a suggestion on the amenity=bbq page But, getting back to the original question, which I need answered for my draft proposal Proposed_features/Campsite_properties: Should we use bbq=yes or barbecue_grill=yes with campsites, caravan sites and camp pitches to specify the presence of a grill that can be used for bbq / grilling? On 7/6/19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06/07/19 02:28, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: >> On 7/5/2019 10:56 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >>> I don't think it would be necessary to combine "bbq=no" and >>> "bring_own_bbq=yes" - if a feature such as a leisure=picnic_site is >>> tagged "bring_own_bbq=yes" that is sufficient. The tag "bbq=no", like >>> most tags with value "no", can be omitted. >> >> This is true. A better phrasing of the problem would be bbq=yes combined >> with bring_own_bbq=yes. Does bbq=yes imply static bbq equipment, or just >> permission to bbq that's further refined by the bring_own_bbq=yes tag? > > To me > > bbq=yes means there is a physical bbq there and I can use it. To have a > physical presence and not being able to use it is foolish. > > bbq=no means I cannot bbq here, I don't think have never used it. > > If there s a need to specify the bbq is permitted but you have to bring > your own (BYO is a common abbreviation here) then a new value? > bbq=bring_your_own??? > > >> >> In my mind, the *only* reason bbq=yes would mean the presence of a grill >> is by echoing the amenity=atm/atm=yes pattern. But I don't think that >> pattern works particularly well in this case. And as you pointed out in >> your translation of the German wiki page, even amenity=bbq is already >> used both ways, for equipment and permission: "One distinguishes between >> free barbecue areas, where you have to take care of the grill yourself >> and fixed barbecue areas with existing grill..." -- but there's no >> indicating of *how* one distinguishes between the two. Obviously at one >> point we didn't care to tag the difference, but now that we do, I don't >> see any clear way of tagging all three possibilities >> (grill/byo-grill/both) using the current tags. > > bbq:cooking_surface=grill/plate/* ?? > where plate is a continuous surface for cooking on, like a fixed pan, > these usually drain to some point for cleaning. > > > > > ___ > 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] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?
On 06/07/19 02:28, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: On 7/5/2019 10:56 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: I don't think it would be necessary to combine "bbq=no" and "bring_own_bbq=yes" - if a feature such as a leisure=picnic_site is tagged "bring_own_bbq=yes" that is sufficient. The tag "bbq=no", like most tags with value "no", can be omitted. This is true. A better phrasing of the problem would be bbq=yes combined with bring_own_bbq=yes. Does bbq=yes imply static bbq equipment, or just permission to bbq that's further refined by the bring_own_bbq=yes tag? To me bbq=yes means there is a physical bbq there and I can use it. To have a physical presence and not being able to use it is foolish. bbq=no means I cannot bbq here, I don't think have never used it. If there s a need to specify the bbq is permitted but you have to bring your own (BYO is a common abbreviation here) then a new value? bbq=bring_your_own??? In my mind, the *only* reason bbq=yes would mean the presence of a grill is by echoing the amenity=atm/atm=yes pattern. But I don't think that pattern works particularly well in this case. And as you pointed out in your translation of the German wiki page, even amenity=bbq is already used both ways, for equipment and permission: "One distinguishes between free barbecue areas, where you have to take care of the grill yourself and fixed barbecue areas with existing grill..." -- but there's no indicating of *how* one distinguishes between the two. Obviously at one point we didn't care to tag the difference, but now that we do, I don't see any clear way of tagging all three possibilities (grill/byo-grill/both) using the current tags. bbq:cooking_surface=grill/plate/* ?? where plate is a continuous surface for cooking on, like a fixed pan, these usually drain to some point for cleaning. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?
On 7/5/2019 10:56 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: I don't think it would be necessary to combine "bbq=no" and "bring_own_bbq=yes" - if a feature such as a leisure=picnic_site is tagged "bring_own_bbq=yes" that is sufficient. The tag "bbq=no", like most tags with value "no", can be omitted. This is true. A better phrasing of the problem would be bbq=yes combined with bring_own_bbq=yes. Does bbq=yes imply static bbq equipment, or just permission to bbq that's further refined by the bring_own_bbq=yes tag? In my mind, the *only* reason bbq=yes would mean the presence of a grill is by echoing the amenity=atm/atm=yes pattern. But I don't think that pattern works particularly well in this case. And as you pointed out in your translation of the German wiki page, even amenity=bbq is already used both ways, for equipment and permission: "One distinguishes between free barbecue areas, where you have to take care of the grill yourself and fixed barbecue areas with existing grill..." -- but there's no indicating of *how* one distinguishes between the two. Obviously at one point we didn't care to tag the difference, but now that we do, I don't see any clear way of tagging all three possibilities (grill/byo-grill/both) using the current tags. Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?
I don't think it would be necessary to combine "bbq=no" and "bring_own_bbq=yes" - if a feature such as a leisure=picnic_site is tagged "bring_own_bbq=yes" that is sufficient. The tag "bbq=no", like most tags with value "no", can be omitted. There might be times when there is "bbq=yes" and "bring_own_bbq=no", if you have to use the provided grill and can't bring your own, and certainly a feature could be tagged with both "bbq=yes" and "bring_own_bbq=yes". That said, I'm happy to use the tag "barbecue_grill=yes/no" if there are other people who clearly prefer this tag to "bbq=yes/no" See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Campsite_properties for the draft proposal On 7/5/19, marc marc wrote: > Le 03.07.19 à 17:17, Jmapb via Tagging a écrit : >> bbq:grills=yes/no/1+ > > or device=* (already approved tag do describe the number > of same devices) ? > >> bbq:bring_own=yes/no > > or equiped=yes/no : the bbq is always there or it's an allowed > but not-equiped area and you need to bring your own ? > ___ > 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] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?
Le 03.07.19 à 17:17, Jmapb via Tagging a écrit : > bbq:grills=yes/no/1+ or device=* (already approved tag do describe the number of same devices) ? > bbq:bring_own=yes/no or equiped=yes/no : the bbq is always there or it's an allowed but not-equiped area and you need to bring your own ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?
On 7/2/2019 8:20 AM, marc marc wrote: Le 02.07.19 à 13:38, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : There are two similar property tags that describe the presence of a barbecue (BBQ) grill at another feature such as a campsite or picnic site. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bbq https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barbecue_grill If you check taghistory.raifer.tech it's clear that barbecue_grill=yes/no is older and still slightly more common, but bbq=yes/no is becoming more common in the past 2 years. The similar feature tag is amenity=bbq Is there a reason to pick one of these two tags over the other? I like having the same string between the main tag for the device and the key for the caracteristic of a site having this device. so imho bbq=yes is better Certainly tagging foo=yes to indicate that amenity=foo exists as part of another feature is standard practice in many cases (atm, toilets, bar being the most prominent). Nonetheless I think bbq=yes is ambiguous. To me, the most natural interpretation of bbq=* is to indicate whether barbecuing is permitted, rather than to specify the presence or absence of an on-site bbq apparatus. Consider the situation brought up in this thread last month: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-June/046064.html The question was: how to tag a feature where barbecuing is permitted, but no fixed bbq grill exists? The best suggestion was bring_own_bbq=yes. But the combination of bbq=no and bring_own_bbq=yes seems contradictory. Despite the inconsistent spelling, barbecue_grill=no + bring_own_bbq=yes makes more sense... slightly more. I'm afraid the possibilities are complex enough that I'd actually suggest using a bbq:* namespace, ie: bbq=yes bbq:grills=yes/no/1+ bbq:bring_own=yes/no There's the issue of redefining bbq=yes, which has 219 uses... but those 219 uses are already ambiguous IMO -- the only thing I know for sure is that barbecuing is permitted there. So I don't actually think this is a redefinition, just a clarification. (These subtags could also be used to clarify amenity=bbq, which according to Joseph Eisenberg at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-June/046072.html is already ambiguous on the German version of the wiki, covering both the grill itself and the area where grilling is allowed.) Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?
Le 02.07.19 à 13:38, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > The similar feature tag is amenity=bbq > > Is there a reason to pick one of these two tags over the other? I like having the same string between the main tag for the device and the key for the caracteristic of a site having this device. so imho bbq=yes is better ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?
sent from a phone > On 2. Jul 2019, at 13:38, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Is there a reason to pick one of these two tags over the other? I'd > like to know what to suggest for use with tourism=camp_pitch I would prefer „bbq“ because it is the analogous key for the established amenity=bbq (despite it being an abbreviation) Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?
There are two similar property tags that describe the presence of a barbecue (BBQ) grill at another feature such as a campsite or picnic site. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bbq https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barbecue_grill If you check taghistory.raifer.tech it's clear that barbecue_grill=yes/no is older and still slightly more common, but bbq=yes/no is becoming more common in the past 2 years. The similar feature tag is amenity=bbq Is there a reason to pick one of these two tags over the other? I'd like to know what to suggest for use with tourism=camp_pitch -Joseph ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
