Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

LeTopographeFou wrote: > I also reached this conclusion some time ago but looking at how it is difficult to change something regarding tagging I stop authorizing myself thinking that such situation CAN be changed. However I'm not >affraid of such major change if it can bring enhancement. I'm ok

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 at 23:52, LeTopographeFou wrote: > I'm ok to consider a proposal which would lead to the tourism=accomodation > schema. > > But I think that whatever we do (new schema vs existing schema) an > "Accomodation" wiki page (routing to hotel/motel/... tags) will be helpfull > to

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

On Monday, December 31, 2018, Tobias Wrede wrote: > > Now that several comments here indicate that the only practical > distinction today is the name on the front sign I come to think that we > could abandon the tag altogether. > +1 ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

I also reached this conclusion some time ago but looking at how it is difficult to change something regarding tagging I stop authorizing myself thinking that such situation CAN be changed. However I'm not affraid of such major change if it can bring enhancement. I'm ok to consider a proposal

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

I've recently been more involved with wikidata and come to appreciate the benefits of having a structured set of data interlinked by well defined properties. You can see here that the current information there considers motels to be a subclass of hotels (so

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

I am getting the same feeling for intermittent/seasonal and ephemeral ... should all be one top level tag. Sigh. n 01/01/19 02:37, Dave Swarthout wrote: Tobias wrote: "Now that several comments here indicate that the only practical distinction today is the name on the front sign I come to

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

Tobias wrote: "Now that several comments here indicate that the only practical distinction today is the name on the front sign I come to think that we could abandon the tag altogether." +1 I agree. We tend to "split hairs" in OSM, when in some cases it simply isn't worth the effort. These

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

In Germany my experience is that actually most hotels in the cities charge for parking. On the other hand you find very very few that call themselves "motel". I can only think of one currently that does, and it is located within a motorway rest area. The exception is the chain Motel One which

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

You're right, I agree with you that we need to make things clear and that those pages may not be rewrote, because they have been wrote independently, at different point in time, and as soon as you add the issue bringed by translations you can measure how difficult it can be, if one does not

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

In the USA, we would also assume a motel offers free parking. Hotels may charge extra for parking, especial if located downtown or next to an airport. Is this also the case in Europe and Australia? On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 8:55 AM Dave Swarthout wrote: > "Today the main difference seems to be

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

"Today the main difference seems to be the sign out front. If a hostelry calls itself a motel, it is a motel. If it calls itself a hotel, it is a hotel. Local licensing authorities do not differentiate between them and they are regulated identically, so far as I can tell. I'd say the

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

Motel = MOtor hoTEL The major difference between a 'hotel" and a "motel" originally was the configuration of the building with respect to parking. At a traditionally designed motel, the cars are parked outside the units, which typically open to the outdoors, not to a hallway, so that patrons of

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

Thank you for bringing this up bkil, as it raises a problem that I have noticed, but not discussed, myself. At least in Australia, & possibly other places?, we have several classifications of hotel &/or motel. We have "International" hotels eg

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

23 Dec 2018, 21:37 by bkil.hu...@gmail.com: > Let's read the Wikipedia article together and then discuss the matter further. > Note that there are also other resources.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

Unfortunately, if we only included the objective criteria based on a high interaction between the parking lot and the rooms, then the number of motels in Hungary for example would be near zero. As two of you have raised concerns regarding this change, I've reverted it and moved the text to my own

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

I would go one step further, an say that there is essentially no functional definition of the difference between a generic "motel" and a generic "hotel". In fact many of the "hotel"s I have stayed in, mainly in the USA, were "motel"s according to the criteria given in the proposal. What one could

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

Hello Niklaas, I have written my own arguments - I have not copied anything from Wikipedia, I wrote every sentence of the text you see there myself. I've actually came up with my own arguments first based on limited local experience and only then double checked in Wikipedia whether I was way off.

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

Thank you for asking. I go a lot to either motels or hotels and I also think that the difference between a motel and an hotel is mainly based on the design of the place, not on the number of nights, the proximity to tourist attractions or major highways or the cost of the land. Consequently I

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

Thank you for the insight, I'll try to figure out a better wording there. I'm also considering to improve the wording of the guest house and hotel articles in the future, though I'll need to find a way to do this without adding too much redundancy. Well, what I wanted to convey in those sentences

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

The one concern I have is the new sentences that suggest that hotels are “typically not [booked for ] single night” while motels are usually booked for 1 night. I have certainly stayed for 2 to 3 nights at a “Motel 6” and other motels. And I have never encountered problems booking rooms for a

[Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

I've made a major rewording of this tag. Please review and don't hesitate to comment or improve if I've mistakenly changed the meaning of the tag: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Atourism%3Dmotel=revision=1755686=1561324 Source: based on Wikipedia and recent mapping