In addition to training=cycling we should probably also support training:cycling=yes as a single place might offer training in more than one field.
From: Paul Allen <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 23 April 2018 21:04 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging cycleable city-models focused on simulating road network On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: I would prefer a long descriptive term (like: "cycling_training_area") over a nice artificial word like "bicycle_town" which creates more questions than it answers. I agree completely about needing a descriptive term. From the wikipedia page mentioned earlier in the thread it's clear that different countries have different names for it and none of those names are self-explanatory. Terms that are self-explanatory mean that people using an editor can look through a list of possible values and it's obvious which one to use without having to resort to the OSM wiki. I'd prefer something more structured than duck tagging a crowded amenity tag, simply because we're likely to encounter more types of training as time goes by. amenity=training + training=cycling works for me. Well, for something private like a room with expensive flight simulators used by airlines then I'd say it's more of a facility than an amenity (you can't just walk in, hand over some money and have a play) but access=private lets us use amenity anyway (even for NASA's astronaut training facilities). -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
