Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Vucod via Tagging]

Ok, I will use that with the tag for the physical obstructions.

Thanks all for the discussion

August 24, 2020 7:07:08 PM CEST Joseph Eisenberg  
wrote:
RE: "Would something like hindrance:target = lying_down or hindrance:target = 
sitting be more clear?"

While this is somewhat less ambiguous, it looks and sounds quite strange in 
English, and it's quite long.

How about "lying_down=obstructed", "sitting=obstructed", "skating=obstructed" 
or something like that?

I also think it would be a good idea to tag the physical obstructions, like 
width=, length=, slope=, arm_rests=, spikes=, skatestoppers=, etc, as others 
have mentioned.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:46 AM Vucod via Tagging  
wrote:
>
> Just to clarify an important point. The hostile_architecture key was 
> suggested as a main/category tag to go along with specific keys 
> (lying_hindrance, sitting_hindrance).
> Used alone, I agree that it would be very vague and could be difficult to 
> verify. I would say to only use it in combination with specific keys but I 
> don't know how this would be followed by mappers...
>
> On the specific tags:
>
> @Josepth Eisenberg(mail below):
>
> As others have said, no_* and *=prohibited loose the notion of hindrance that 
> is crucial if we want to map physical and visible things. Would something 
> like hindrance:target = lying_down or hindrance:target = sitting be more 
> clear? And yes, the goal is to make clear that {lying|sitting|...} is 
> physically obstructed (no relation to legal usage).
>
> @Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> "what about benches being completely removed (or never installed), it’s 
> equally hostile but not mappable. Or shops who are right away not built in a 
> way that you could sit down on their facade."
>
> With tags like lying_hindrance and sitting_hindrance, we don't look for the 
> intentions of the builders but we just look for these hindrances. So, we 
> would not map your examples.
>
> "quite common in Rome are inside corners of buildings filled with masonry 
> (typically up to 1,5m) so people do not urinate (not a recent feature, most 
> look as if they were hundreds of years old). And in this case, it’s also 
> probably more beneficial than hostile in the general perception. At least I 
> guess many of us would deny a right of public urination in the city?"
>
> Yes with the term "hostile", an opinion could be seen behind it but the term 
> "hostile architecture" refers to the enforcement/prevention of some
> behaviors whether it is good or not. In German and French, they use defensive 
> architecture/ defensive urban design where it is less opinionated.
>
> @Mateusz Konieczny : ""length was refused as an official key for bench" Why? 
> Is there some valid reason, or maybe it was part of proposal that failed for 
> other reasons."
>
> length and width keys on benches were refused because they judged that it was 
> going too much into details 
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Attributes)
>
>
> On the generic tag:
>
> As info:
>
> - "Hostile architecture", a Wikipédia article, a subreddit and 150 000 google 
> results
> - "Hostile design", 20 000 google results
>
> Vucod
>
> August 23, 2020 10:22:38 PM CEST Joseph Eisenberg 
>  wrote:
>
> The term "hostile architecture" is too vague. As an alternative 
> "anti-homeless" is also not precise enough. We are getting closer with the 
> initial suggestion that the feature is to prevent lying down, sleeping or 
> sitting.
>
> However, I think the tags "sitting_hindrance=" and "lying_hindrance" are not 
> clear enough in English. The term "lying" is ambiguous, since it can refer to 
> "telling lies" (falsehoods) as well. Also, in English syntax it sounds 
> strange to say something is a "lying hindrance", because this would normally 
> be an obstacle which is lying down, rather than a hindrance to a person lying 
> down. 
>
> So it would be better to change the order of words in the tags, e.g. 
> "no_lying=" and "no_sitting=" , or just simplify to "sitting=prohibited" and 
> "lying_down=prohibited" or similar. But I admit that none of those options 
> are perfectly clear. Perhaps someone else has a better phrase? 
>
>
> We want to make it clear that lying down or sitting down is not allowed or 
> physical obstructed, right?
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 10:38 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 18:22, Oliver Simmons  wrote:
> >
> >> Someone else can probably think of a better suggestion
> >
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture
> >
> > --
> > Paul
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> 

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Aug 2020, at 00:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> If we put access=no on a road, we (usually) don't then show if the road is 
> physically blocked, or it just has a "No Entry" sign.


actually we do, access is about legal access. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 19:45, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 25. Aug 2020, at 11:02, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:
> >
> > Better. But why not sitting=no, etc
>
> it is not clear whether you cannot physically sit there or whether it is
> legally forbidden
>

Does it really matter?

If we put access=no on a road, we (usually) don't then show if the road is
physically blocked, or it just has a "No Entry" sign.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 25. Aug 2020, at 11:02, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:
> 
> Better. But why not sitting=no, etc


it is not clear whether you cannot physically sit there or whether it is 
legally forbidden 


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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

Joseph Eisenberg:
> RE: "Would something like hindrance:target = lying_down or hindrance:target = 
> sitting
> be more clear?"

I do no like negative formulations.
> 
> While this is somewhat less ambiguous, it looks and sounds quite strange in 
> English,
> and it's quite long.
> 
> How about "lying_down=obstructed", "sitting=obstructed", "skating=obstructed" 
> or
> something like that?


Better. But why not sitting=no, etc.

as for skating, could we not just set smoothness to something different than 
excellent.


> I also think it would be a good idea to tag the physical obstructions, like 
> width=,
> length=, slope=, arm_rests=, spikes=, skatestoppers=, etc, as others have 
> mentioned.


-- 
Niels Elgaard Larsen

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Joseph Eisenberg]

RE: "Would something like hindrance:target = lying_down or hindrance:target
= sitting be more clear?"

While this is somewhat less ambiguous, it looks and sounds quite strange in
English, and it's quite long.

How about "lying_down=obstructed", "sitting=obstructed",
"skating=obstructed" or something like that?

I also think it would be a good idea to tag the physical obstructions, like
width=, length=, slope=, arm_rests=, spikes=, skatestoppers=, etc, as
others have mentioned.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:46 AM Vucod via Tagging 
wrote:
>
> Just to clarify an important point. The hostile_architecture key was
suggested as a main/category tag to go along with specific keys
(lying_hindrance, sitting_hindrance).
> Used alone, I agree that it would be very vague and could be difficult to
verify. I would say to only use it in combination with specific keys but I
don't know how this would be followed by mappers...
>
> On the specific tags:
>
> @Josepth Eisenberg(mail below):
>
> As others have said, no_* and *=prohibited loose the notion of hindrance
that is crucial if we want to map physical and visible things. Would
something like hindrance:target = lying_down or hindrance:target = sitting
be more clear? And yes, the goal is to make clear that {lying|sitting|...}
is physically obstructed (no relation to legal usage).
>
> @Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> "what about benches being completely removed (or never installed), it’s
equally hostile but not mappable. Or shops who are right away not built in
a way that you could sit down on their facade."
>
> With tags like lying_hindrance and sitting_hindrance, we don't look for
the intentions of the builders but we just look for these hindrances. So,
we would not map your examples.
>
> "quite common in Rome are inside corners of buildings filled with masonry
(typically up to 1,5m) so people do not urinate (not a recent feature, most
look as if they were hundreds of years old). And in this case, it’s also
probably more beneficial than hostile in the general perception. At least I
guess many of us would deny a right of public urination in the city?"
>
> Yes with the term "hostile", an opinion could be seen behind it but the
term "hostile architecture" refers to the enforcement/prevention of some
> behaviors whether it is good or not. In German and French, they use
defensive architecture/ defensive urban design where it is less opinionated.
>
> @Mateusz Konieczny : ""length was refused as an official key for bench"
Why? Is there some valid reason, or maybe it was part of proposal that
failed for other reasons."
>
> length and width keys on benches were refused because they judged that it
was going too much into details (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Attributes)
>
>
> On the generic tag:
>
> As info:
>
> - "Hostile architecture", a Wikipédia article, a subreddit and 150 000
google results
> - "Hostile design", 20 000 google results
>
> Vucod
>
> August 23, 2020 10:22:38 PM CEST Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The term "hostile architecture" is too vague. As an alternative
"anti-homeless" is also not precise enough. We are getting closer with the
initial suggestion that the feature is to prevent lying down, sleeping or
sitting.
>
> However, I think the tags "sitting_hindrance=" and "lying_hindrance" are
not clear enough in English. The term "lying" is ambiguous, since it can
refer to "telling lies" (falsehoods) as well. Also, in English syntax it
sounds strange to say something is a "lying hindrance", because this would
normally be an obstacle which is lying down, rather than a hindrance to a
person lying down.
>
> So it would be better to change the order of words in the tags, e.g.
"no_lying=" and "no_sitting=" , or just simplify to "sitting=prohibited"
and "lying_down=prohibited" or similar. But I admit that none of those
options are perfectly clear. Perhaps someone else has a better phrase?
>
>
> We want to make it clear that lying down or sitting down is not allowed
or physical obstructed, right?
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 10:38 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 18:22, Oliver Simmons 
wrote:
> >
> >> Someone else can probably think of a better suggestion
> >
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture
> >
> > --
> > Paul
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> 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] Benches and hostile architecture

[Vucod via Tagging]

Just to clarify an important point. The hostile_architecture key was suggested 
as a main/category tag to go along with specific keys (lying_hindrance, 
sitting_hindrance).
Used alone, I agree that it would be very vague and could be difficult to 
verify. I would say to only use it in combination with specific keys but I 
don't know how this would be followed by mappers...

On the specific tags:

@Josepth Eisenberg(mail below): 

As others have said, no_* and *=prohibited loose the notion of hindrance that 
is crucial if we want to map physical and visible things. Would something like 
hindrance:target = lying_down or hindrance:target = sitting be more clear? And 
yes, the goal is to make clear that {lying|sitting|...} is physically 
obstructed (no relation to legal usage).

@Martin Koppenhoefer : 

"what about benches being completely removed (or never installed), it’s equally 
hostile but not mappable. Or shops who are right away not built in a way that 
you could sit down on their facade."

With tags like lying_hindrance and sitting_hindrance, we don't look for the 
intentions of the builders but we just look for these hindrances. So, we would 
not map your examples.

"quite common in Rome are inside corners of buildings filled with masonry 
(typically up to 1,5m) so people do not urinate (not a recent feature, most 
look as if they were hundreds of years old). And in this case, it’s also 
probably more beneficial than hostile in the general perception. At least I 
guess many of us would deny a right of public urination in the city?"

Yes with the term "hostile", an opinion could be seen behind it but the term 
"hostile architecture" refers to the enforcement/prevention of some 

behaviors whether it is good or not. In German and French, they use defensive 
architecture/ defensive urban design where it is less opinionated.

@Mateusz Konieczny : ""length was refused as an official key for bench" Why? Is 
there some valid reason, or maybe it was part of proposal that failed for other 
reasons."

length and width keys on benches were refused because they judged that it was 
going too much into details 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Attributes)

On the generic tag:

As info:

- "Hostile architecture", a Wikipédia article, a subreddit and 150 000 google 
results
- "Hostile design", 20 000 google results

Vucod

August 23, 2020 10:22:38 PM CEST Joseph Eisenberg  
wrote:
The term "hostile architecture" is too vague. As an alternative "anti-homeless" 
is also not precise enough. We are getting closer with the initial suggestion 
that the feature is to prevent lying down, sleeping or sitting.

However, I think the tags "sitting_hindrance=" and "lying_hindrance" are not 
clear enough in English. The term "lying" is ambiguous, since it can refer to 
"telling lies" (falsehoods) as well. Also, in English syntax it sounds strange 
to say something is a "lying hindrance", because this would normally be an 
obstacle which is lying down, rather than a hindrance to a person lying down. 

So it would be better to change the order of words in the tags, e.g. 
"no_lying=" and "no_sitting=" , or just simplify to "sitting=prohibited" and 
"lying_down=prohibited" or similar. But I admit that none of those options are 
perfectly clear. Perhaps someone else has a better phrase? 

We want to make it clear that lying down or sitting down is not allowed or 
physical obstructed, right?

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 10:38 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 18:22, Oliver Simmons  wrote:
>
>> Someone else can probably think of a better suggestion
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
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] Benches and hostile architecture

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 24. Aug 2020, at 15:46, Vucod via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> length and width keys on benches were refused because they judged that it was 
> going too much into details


I don’t know who “they” are, but “they” can well stick with this opinion and 
not map these properties just like you can use them without asking anyone for 
permission.

With regard to the topic we are discussing here, length and width (maybe depth? 
Be sure to document which dimension is described with which key, because it 
doesn’t seem perfectly clear what width refers to) or more generally the 
dimensions seem quite relevant for the suitability of lying and comfort of 
sitting.

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[pangoSE]

Hi

Vucod via Tagging  skrev: (24 augusti 2020 15:43:37 
CEST)
>Just to clarify an important point. The hostile_architecture key was
>suggested as a main/category tag to go along with specific keys
>(lying_hindrance, sitting_hindrance).
>Used alone, I agree that it would be very vague and could be difficult
>to verify. I would say to only use it in combination with specific keys
>but I don't know how this would be followed by mappers...

I think this is a bad idea. Someone wanting to list all examples of hostile 
architecture could do it using the other tags you mentioned.  Hostile is biased 
and not verifyable and should be avoided IMO.

/pangoSE 

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Peter Elderson]

Wouln't it be more osm to describe visible and verifiable attributes of 
features, rather than architectural design principles or supposed intentions?

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 24 aug. 2020 om 12:11 heeft Florian Lohoff  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 01:22:38PM -0700, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> The term "hostile architecture" is too vague. As an alternative
>> "anti-homeless" is also not precise enough. We are getting closer with the
>> initial suggestion that the feature is to prevent lying down, sleeping or
>> sitting.
> 
> Its not just anti-homeless there are also features which are explicitly 
> anti-skateboard etc
> 
> Flo
> -- 
> Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
>UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away
> ___
> 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] Benches and hostile architecture

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 01:22:38PM -0700, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> The term "hostile architecture" is too vague. As an alternative
> "anti-homeless" is also not precise enough. We are getting closer with the
> initial suggestion that the feature is to prevent lying down, sleeping or
> sitting.

Its not just anti-homeless there are also features which are explicitly 
anti-skateboard etc

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 24.08.20 02:46, Paul Allen wrote:
> I'm not seriously suggesting we map them this way but speed bumps are
> technically hostile architecture. :)

As are cattle grids if you're a cow!

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Alan Mackie]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2020, 01:48 Paul Allen,  wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 01:27, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 24. Aug 2020, at 01:45, Paul Allen  wrote:
>> >
>> > It's hostile to public urinators.
>>
>> agreed, but isn’t publicly urinating an offense anyway?
>
>
> In most jurisdictions.  So is sleeping on a public bench in many
> jurisdictions.
> Countermeasures are hostile to those who would otherwise commit
> offences.  Which is why the wikipedia article considers uncomfortable
> benches and walls that discourage urination to be hostile architecture.
>
> Speed limits are also hostile to people who like to drive fast for example.
>>
>
> I'm not seriously suggesting we map them this way but speed bumps are
> technically hostile architecture. :)
>
Most I encounter are hostile to the speed you're meant to be going, not
just to people exceeding that speed.

Really quite annoying actually.

>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Benches and hostile architecture

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 24. Aug 2020, at 02:48, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> I'm not seriously suggesting we map them this way but speed bumps are
> technically hostile architecture. :)


If we would go this way this should probably be hostile_engineering
:)

Cheers Martin 



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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 01:27, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 24. Aug 2020, at 01:45, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > It's hostile to public urinators.
>
> agreed, but isn’t publicly urinating an offense anyway?


In most jurisdictions.  So is sleeping on a public bench in many
jurisdictions.
Countermeasures are hostile to those who would otherwise commit
offences.  Which is why the wikipedia article considers uncomfortable
benches and walls that discourage urination to be hostile architecture.

Speed limits are also hostile to people who like to drive fast for example.
>

I'm not seriously suggesting we map them this way but speed bumps are
technically hostile architecture. :)

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 8/23/20 19:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> One of our local councillors came up with her own way of deterring
> teenagers from hanging around the bus stops in the CBD, & also homeless
> from sleeping there overnight.
> 
> She had vandalism-proof speakers installed over them, that play
> classical music 24/7!

Our local Murphy USA c-store/fuel station was playing classical music
for a while, for a similar reason (to repel panhandlers/homeless).

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 09:43, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> Either we come up with very specific tags for ever particular variation
> of every type of object that could be used to deter sleeping (or
> skateboarding, or urination, or whatever) or we come up with a
> a general tag (hostile_architecture=yes) to indicate there is
> something abnormal.
>

One of our local councillors came up with her own way of deterring
teenagers from hanging around the bus stops in the CBD, & also homeless
from sleeping there overnight.

She had vandalism-proof speakers installed over them, that play classical
music 24/7!

It's worked!

Maybe
hostile_architecture=yes
"preventing"=sleeping / sitting / skateboarding / urination / camping etc
would work?

I don't really like preventing but something along that general idea?
Prevention_of? Deterring/ent?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 24. Aug 2020, at 01:45, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> It's hostile to public urinators. 


agreed, but isn’t publicly urinating an offense anyway? Speed limits are also 
hostile to people who like to drive fast for example.

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Aug 24, 2020, 01:41 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 00:22, Martin Koppenhoefer <> dieterdre...@gmail.com> 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Or benches which are right away designed to not let you even sit 
>> comfortably, like the Rome bus stops:
>>
>> https://www.quotidianodiragusa.com/cache/2013/12/1386445483-0-roma-auto-impazzita-si-schianta-contro-la-fermata-del-bus-5-feriti_900x600.jpg
>>
>
> In my part of the world, this type of seat has become increasingly common over
> the past 20 years.  In larger shelters they are long enough to sleep on but 
> not
> wide enough, so a tag indicating bench length as an indicator of it being
> designed to discourage sleeping wouldn't work.  I agree with you that these
> are also uncomfortable to sit on.
>
> Either we come up with very specific tags for ever particular variation
> of every type of object that could be used to deter sleeping (or
> skateboarding, or urination, or whatever) or we come up with a
> a general tag (hostile_architecture=yes) to indicate there is
> something abnormal.
>
hostile_architecture=yes is hopelessly broad to the point of
uselessnesses

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 00:38, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> great you mention it, also quite common in Rome are inside corners of
> buildings filled with masonry (typically up to 1,5m) so people do not
> urinate (not a recent feature, most look as if they were hundreds of years
> old). And in this case, it’s also probably more beneficial than hostile in
> the general perception. At least I guess many of us would deny a right of
> public urination in the city?
>
> It's hostile to public urinators.  Bumps on handrails are hostile to
skateboarders.
Uncomfortable benches are hostile to the homeless who want somewhere to
sleep.

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 00:22, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> Or benches which are right away designed to not let you even sit
> comfortably, like the Rome bus stops:
>
>
> https://www.quotidianodiragusa.com/cache/2013/12/1386445483-0-roma-auto-impazzita-si-schianta-contro-la-fermata-del-bus-5-feriti_900x600.jpg
>

In my part of the world, this type of seat has become increasingly common
over
the past 20 years.  In larger shelters they are long enough to sleep on but
not
wide enough, so a tag indicating bench length as an indicator of it being
designed to discourage sleeping wouldn't work.  I agree with you that these
are also uncomfortable to sit on.

Either we come up with very specific tags for ever particular variation
of every type of object that could be used to deter sleeping (or
skateboarding, or urination, or whatever) or we come up with a
a general tag (hostile_architecture=yes) to indicate there is
something abnormal.

-- 
Paul


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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Aug 2020, at 23:39, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> Hostile architecture is also employed to deter skateboarding, littering, 
> loitering, and public urination."
> 
> There is an example of a 1800s church with a sloped wall, designed to deflect 
> urine


great you mention it, also quite common in Rome are inside corners of buildings 
filled with masonry (typically up to 1,5m) so people do not urinate (not a 
recent feature, most look as if they were hundreds of years old). And in this 
case, it’s also probably more beneficial than hostile in the general 
perception. At least I guess many of us would deny a right of public urination 
in the city?

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Aug 2020, at 23:20, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> The British really call bench construction "architecture"?


I may be misguided but I believe the term is “urban decor” for these things, 
including street lights, bins, planters etc. and yes, it is often designed by 
architects/part of the architectural design (also in the netherlands...)

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Aug 2020, at 22:24, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> We want to make it clear that lying down or sitting down is not allowed or 
> physical obstructed, right?


I think the focus is on physically obstructed, although this is also not very 
easy to decide in every case, and it will only tell part of the story. For 
example the case of a bench which gets later amended with features that prevent 
lying on them might seem clear, similar to handrails in schools where bumps are 
added to prevent sliding in the staircases, but what about benches being 
completely removed (or never installed), it’s equally hostile but not mappable. 
Or shops who are right away not built in a way that you could sit down on their 
facade.

Another issue is judging the motivation.

In Rome I have 2 prominent examples coming to mind: Palazzo Farnese, a 16th 
century building has benches integrated all along its main facade to the 
square, here in 2011:
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fachada_Farnese_01.jpg

now they have fenced off the front of the building:

https://media.06blog.it/t/tra/transenne-ambasciata-francese/foto.JPG

likely they will tell you it is for security reasons (it is home of the French 
embassy).


Another example is the back of the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, with 
impressive stairs where people used to sit down, now it is fenced off (actually 
for many, 12+, years).

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rome_-_Santa_Maria_Maggiore_-_facade.JPG

here’s a picture of the context:
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Uv5GPV4gzqKemE8Sod5M5gHaEq%26pid%3DApi=1

It’s not always clear which kind of “security” is intended.


Or benches which are right away designed to not let you even sit comfortably, 
like the Rome bus stops:

https://www.quotidianodiragusa.com/cache/2013/12/1386445483-0-roma-auto-impazzita-si-schianta-contro-la-fermata-del-bus-5-feriti_900x600.jpg

(While traditionally there weren’t any benches anyway, at least in the not in 
the recent past and still many stops are just a pole):  
https://www.repubblica.it/2003/e/gallerie/cronaca/divano/esterne061916440610191747_big.jpg

end of several lines:

https://roma.repubblica.it/images/2012/06/07/223645185-efd8381b-3456-4f88-b497-e2e2f158ead8.jpg

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Taskar Center]

Hi,

Well, in defense of Oliversimmo, we have MANY subjective tags in OSM that 
require a second look. Like accessible=yes... accessible to whom? Even if 
you’re just assuming accessible to wheelchairs:  wheelchair users have such a 
wide breadth of preferences, needs, and risks they’re willing to take in the 
built environment. we’re much better off deprecating the accessible tag and 
instead specifying the precise width of the surface and whether it has a smooth 
surface, so users and routers can downstream assess access. 

Likewise, in this case, would it make sense to propose a tag for benches as:
segment_width=?(expressed in ft)
Where the tag represents the longest width that is unhampered by an armrest or 
other obstruction to laying down. This might be more in the OSM spirit of 
mapping the physical ‘thing’, and each DOWNSTREAM interpretation can assess 
whether the bench can be used for laying down.

Anat

Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

> On Aug 23, 2020, at 10:20 AM, Oliver Simmons  wrote:
> 
> Good point.
> By "hostile" I meant against homeless people.
> Without the context it would be hard to understand what is meant.
> 
> `anti_homeless` maybe?
> Someone else can probably think of a better suggestion
> 
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2020, 18:01 Martin Koppenhoefer,  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> sent from a phone
>> 
>> > On 23. Aug 2020, at 18:40, Oliver Simmons  wrote:
>> > 
>> > I agree with the `hostile_architecture=` tag as this could be expanded on 
>> > in the future
>> 
>> 
>> I can see the point, but it is probably not verifiable in many instances (it 
>> could be seen as hostile but it could have other reasons, also it may be 
>> hostile but not intended (bad architect)). And there would be many edge 
>> cases, e.g. a luxury development in the city, which effectively closes a 
>> passage (on private grounds) which locals are used to be available, would 
>> most certainly be considered hostile by these locals, but likely not by 
>> others who do not know it was a passage before, etc.
>> 
>> 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
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 22:20, Peter Elderson  wrote:

> The British really call bench construction "architecture"? Amazing.
>

>From the wikipedia article I provided a link to earlier: "Hostile
architecture is
an urban-design strategy that uses elements of the built environment to
purposefully guide or restrict behaviour in order to prevent crime and
maintain
order."  Benches are one of the things included.  As are paved surfaces
with bumps and the walls of buildings to prevent urination.

Hostile design might be better.  Another of the names given to it.

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I understand that it's the normal term for the general concept, but it
includes a large number of things:

"measures include sloped window sills to stop people sitting; benches with
armrests positioned to stop people lying on them, and water sprinklers that
"intermittently come on but aren't really watering anything."[4][5] Hostile
architecture is also employed to deter skateboarding, littering, loitering,
and public urination."

There is an example of a 1800s church with a sloped wall, designed to
deflect urine. That's quite different than spikes on a threshold, armrests
on a bench, or metal brackets on the edge of a curb (meant to deter
skateboarding).

It's a big category, so it would be best to use precise tags for each
thing.

For example, if you want to tag a kerb which has guard to prevent easy
skateboarding, then add something like "anti-skate_devices=yes" or
"skate_prevention=yes", don't use "hostile_architecture=yes" because that
is non-specific: it's not clear if what is prevented is sitting, lying
down, or skating.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 2:20 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> The British really call bench construction "architecture"? Amazing. I can
see this going the same way as village green.
>
> Mvg Peter Elderson
>
> > Op 23 aug. 2020 om 22:59 heeft Andy Townsend  het
volgende geschreven:
> >
> > On 23/08/2020 21:22, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> >> The term "hostile architecture" is too vague.
> >
> > It is the normal British English (at least) description of this stuff.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> 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] Benches and hostile architecture

[Peter Elderson]

The British really call bench construction "architecture"? Amazing. I can see 
this going the same way as village green.

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 23 aug. 2020 om 22:59 heeft Andy Townsend  het volgende 
> geschreven:
> 
> On 23/08/2020 21:22, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> The term "hostile architecture" is too vague.
> 
> It is the normal British English (at least) description of this stuff.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Benches and hostile architecture

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/08/2020 21:22, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

The term "hostile architecture" is too vague.


It is the normal British English (at least) description of this stuff.

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 21:24, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

The term "hostile architecture" is too vague.
>

However, it is a "term of the art."  It's what it's called out in the real
world, so
is likely to be used in the media.  As with many phrases in colloquial
English, the sum is greater than the parts.  Most people in the UK
understand what is meant by "Listed Building" even though it is
impossible to discern the meaning from the component words.

Yes, the media does matter.  The first a mapper may know that benches
in a particular location have been replaced is a local newspaper saying
they've been replaced by hostile architecture.  After a survey to find out
where they are, the mapper then has to figure out how to map hostile
architecture.  It makes life simpler if we use that term.

As an alternative "anti-homeless" is also not precise enough.
>

I agree.  The intention may be to deter the homeless but it has an effect
upon everyone.  Those things are not just uncomfortable to sleep on,
most designs are uncomfortable to sit on.  They are hostile to everyone.


> So it would be better to change the order of words in the tags, e.g.
> "no_lying=" and "no_sitting=" , or just simplify to "sitting=prohibited"
> and "lying_down=prohibited" or similar. But I admit that none of those
> options are perfectly clear.
>

They are perfectly unclear.  Normal benches can have a sign saying "lying
down is prohibited" without being designed to make it difficult or
impossible.
Those phrases apply to legal usage, not to physical possibility.

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The term "hostile architecture" is too vague. As an alternative
"anti-homeless" is also not precise enough. We are getting closer with the
initial suggestion that the feature is to prevent lying down, sleeping or
sitting.

However, I think the tags "sitting_hindrance=" and "lying_hindrance" are
not clear enough in English. The term "lying" is ambiguous, since it can
refer to "telling lies" (falsehoods) as well. Also, in English syntax it
sounds strange to say something is a "lying hindrance", because this would
normally be an obstacle which is lying down, rather than a hindrance to a
person lying down.

So it would be better to change the order of words in the tags, e.g.
"no_lying=" and "no_sitting=" , or just simplify to "sitting=prohibited"
and "lying_down=prohibited" or similar. But I admit that none of those
options are perfectly clear. Perhaps someone else has a better phrase?

We want to make it clear that lying down or sitting down is not allowed or
physical obstructed, right?

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 10:38 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 18:22, Oliver Simmons 
wrote:
>
>> Someone else can probably think of a better suggestion
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Benches and hostile architecture

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 18:22, Oliver Simmons  wrote:

Someone else can probably think of a better suggestion
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Oliver Simmons]

Good point.
By "hostile" I meant against homeless people.
Without the context it would be hard to understand what is meant.

`anti_homeless` maybe?
Someone else can probably think of a better suggestion

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020, 18:01 Martin Koppenhoefer, 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 23. Aug 2020, at 18:40, Oliver Simmons  wrote:
> >
> > I agree with the `hostile_architecture=` tag as this could be expanded
> on in the future
>
>
> I can see the point, but it is probably not verifiable in many instances
> (it could be seen as hostile but it could have other reasons, also it may
> be hostile but not intended (bad architect)). And there would be many edge
> cases, e.g. a luxury development in the city, which effectively closes a
> passage (on private grounds) which locals are used to be available, would
> most certainly be considered hostile by these locals, but likely not by
> others who do not know it was a passage before, etc.
>
> 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] Benches and hostile architecture

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Aug 2020, at 18:40, Oliver Simmons  wrote:
> 
> I agree with the `hostile_architecture=` tag as this could be expanded on in 
> the future


I can see the point, but it is probably not verifiable in many instances (it 
could be seen as hostile but it could have other reasons, also it may be 
hostile but not intended (bad architect)). And there would be many edge cases, 
e.g. a luxury development in the city, which effectively closes a passage (on 
private grounds) which locals are used to be available, would most certainly be 
considered hostile by these locals, but likely not by others who do not know it 
was a passage before, etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

[Oliver Simmons]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020, 17:38 Oliver Simmons,  wrote:

> I agree with the `hostile_architecture=` tag as this could be expanded on
> in the future.
>
> Other types of common hostile architecture I know of:
> - sloped bus stop benches
> - spikes on the floor
> - bike racks in annoying places
>
> I propose `hostile_architecture=spikes`
> and `hostile_architecture=yes` for when it is more vague.
>
> As far as I know they are all anti-homeless to try and move them elsewhere
> out of the public eye.
> (makes it seems as if there are less homeless people)
>
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2020, 17:30 Vucod via Tagging, 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> 1) I wish to tag benches that were designed to avoid that someone lie on
>> it. There has been some related discussions in the past (
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/avbmsb/is_there_a_preferred_way_of_mapping_possible/
>> and
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/8rs7zf/how_to_map_antihomeless_bench/
>> )
>> but with no conclusion. It is possible that it has retained people to map
>> that kind of objects. Today, there is nearly no such information in OSM.
>> Maybe it is because it is not its place? Nobody expressed that clearly.
>>
>> So, I started to use the tag *lying_hindrance=yes* on some benches. In
>> case of doubts, this can be verified when doing surveys, by lying on the
>> bench. This could also be determined most of the time by looking at a few
>> things. The length of the bench, the presence of a slope, the presence of
>> separation between the seats of the bench, and by checking if it is a
>> standing bench. Note that length was refused as an official key for bench
>> and that the key for the separation doesn't exist (armrest does not
>> specifically concern the inner part of the bench). The tag could be
>> extended by specifying the hindrance type: armrest, standing_bench,
>> short_length, slope, ...
>>
>> What do you think about this tag? Do you have alternative ideas?
>>
>> 2) Also, I wish to map something else related to hostile architecture
>> . I wish to map
>> devices that are placed near the entrance of shops to prevent people to sit
>> there (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGdHfvsCP7A,
>> https://twitter.com/ArticuleE/status/1222197697333145603,
>> https://twitter.com/ArticuleE/status/1215931276944924672). I was going
>> to add a combination of tags on the building where the shop is located:
>>
>> sitting_hindrance=yes
>> sitting_hindrance:location=street_side
>>
>> It can also be verified quite easily. A general tag like
>> hostile_architecture={sitting_hindrance|lying_hindrance} would also be
>> quite useful for mappers to rapidly understand the purpose of these tags.
>>
>> What do you think about it?
>>
>> Thanks for your time
>>
>> Vucod
>> ___
>> 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] Benches and hostile architecture

[Oliver Simmons]

I agree with the `hostile_architecture=` tag as this could be expanded on
in the future.

Other types of common hostile architecture I know of:
- sloped bus stop benches
- spikes on the floor
- bike racks in annoying places

I propose `hostile_architecture=spikes`
and `hostile_architecture=yes` for when it is more vague.

As far as I know they are all anti-homeless to try and move them elsewhere
out of the public eye.
(makes it seems as if there are less homeless people)

On Sun, 23 Aug 2020, 17:30 Vucod via Tagging, 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> 1) I wish to tag benches that were designed to avoid that someone lie on
> it. There has been some related discussions in the past (
> https://www.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/avbmsb/is_there_a_preferred_way_of_mapping_possible/
> and
> https://www.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/8rs7zf/how_to_map_antihomeless_bench/
> )
> but with no conclusion. It is possible that it has retained people to map
> that kind of objects. Today, there is nearly no such information in OSM.
> Maybe it is because it is not its place? Nobody expressed that clearly.
>
> So, I started to use the tag *lying_hindrance=yes* on some benches. In
> case of doubts, this can be verified when doing surveys, by lying on the
> bench. This could also be determined most of the time by looking at a few
> things. The length of the bench, the presence of a slope, the presence of
> separation between the seats of the bench, and by checking if it is a
> standing bench. Note that length was refused as an official key for bench
> and that the key for the separation doesn't exist (armrest does not
> specifically concern the inner part of the bench). The tag could be
> extended by specifying the hindrance type: armrest, standing_bench,
> short_length, slope, ...
>
> What do you think about this tag? Do you have alternative ideas?
>
> 2) Also, I wish to map something else related to hostile architecture
> . I wish to map
> devices that are placed near the entrance of shops to prevent people to sit
> there (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGdHfvsCP7A,
> https://twitter.com/ArticuleE/status/1222197697333145603,
> https://twitter.com/ArticuleE/status/1215931276944924672). I was going to
> add a combination of tags on the building where the shop is located:
>
> sitting_hindrance=yes
> sitting_hindrance:location=street_side
>
> It can also be verified quite easily. A general tag like
> hostile_architecture={sitting_hindrance|lying_hindrance} would also be
> quite useful for mappers to rapidly understand the purpose of these tags.
>
> What do you think about it?
>
> Thanks for your time
>
> Vucod
> ___
> 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] Benches and hostile architecture

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

"length was refused as an official key for bench"

Why? Is there some valid reason, or maybe it was part of proposal that
failed for other reasons.

lying_hindrance=yes - there are some cases where it is fairly obvious, but
there are some borderline situations (like quite short benches that could
be used for many reasons, not necessarily to block sleeping on them).

Seems close to smoothness tag that is on edge of verifiviability.

Aug 23, 2020, 18:28 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> Hello,
>
> 1) I wish to tag benches that were designed to avoid that someone lie on it. 
> There has been some related discussions in the past (> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/avbmsb/is_there_a_preferred_way_of_mapping_possible/>
>   and > 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/8rs7zf/how_to_map_antihomeless_bench/>
>   )
> but with no conclusion. It is possible that it has retained people to map 
> that kind of objects. Today, there is nearly no such information in OSM. 
> Maybe it is because it is not its place? Nobody expressed that clearly. 
>
> So, I started to use the tag > lying_hindrance=yes>  on some benches. In case 
> of doubts, this can be verified when doing surveys, by lying on the bench. 
> This could also be determined most of the time by looking at a few things. 
> The length of the bench, the presence of a slope, the presence of separation 
> between the seats of the bench, and by checking if it is a standing bench. 
> Note that length was refused as an official key for bench and that the key 
> for the separation doesn't exist (armrest does not specifically concern the 
> inner part of the bench). The tag could be extended by specifying the 
> hindrance type:  armrest, standing_bench, short_length, slope, ...
>
> What do you think about this tag? Do you have alternative ideas?
>
> 2) Also, I wish to map something else related to > hostile architecture 
> > . I wish to map devices 
> that are placed near the entrance of shops to prevent people to sit there (> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGdHfvsCP7A> , > 
> https://twitter.com/ArticuleE/status/1222197697333145603> , > 
> https://twitter.com/ArticuleE/status/1215931276944924672> ). I was going to 
> add a combination of tags on the building where the shop is located:
>
> sitting_hindrance=yes 
> sitting_hindrance:location=street_side
>
> It can also be verified quite easily.  A general tag like 
> hostile_architecture={sitting_hindrance|lying_hindrance} would also be quite 
> useful for mappers to rapidly understand the purpose of these tags.
>
> What do you think about it?
>
> Thanks for your time
>
> Vucod
>

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