Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Liz wrote: > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Steve Bennett wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:12 PM, John Smith > > wrote: > > > 2009/12/15 Steve Bennett : > > >> Ok, so who's going to write up a description of licensed_club, so we > > >> can ram through a proposal? > > > > > > Which is mostly a pointless exercise in game theory. > > > > > > Just document it, add it to the AU tagging guidelines and sneak it > > > onto the map features page at some stage in the future when it is in > > > wide use. > > > > Either way. :) > > > > Steve > > A licensed club is a community based club which has meeting rooms and a > liquor licence > Most have additional services eg bistro / restaurant, poker machines. > I'm sure 'culture' could have been misused here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Cultural_Features and i would like whatever was decided by the shark-net swimming area problem to go in here too (it was on #osm-au) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:12 PM, John Smith wrote: > > 2009/12/15 Steve Bennett : > >> Ok, so who's going to write up a description of licensed_club, so we > >> can ram through a proposal? > > > > Which is mostly a pointless exercise in game theory. > > > > Just document it, add it to the AU tagging guidelines and sneak it > > onto the map features page at some stage in the future when it is in > > wide use. > > Either way. :) > > Steve > A licensed club is a community based club which has meeting rooms and a liquor licence Most have additional services eg bistro / restaurant, poker machines. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:12 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/12/15 Steve Bennett : >> Ok, so who's going to write up a description of licensed_club, so we >> can ram through a proposal? > > Which is mostly a pointless exercise in game theory. > > Just document it, add it to the AU tagging guidelines and sneak it > onto the map features page at some stage in the future when it is in > wide use. Either way. :) Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett : > Ok, so who's going to write up a description of licensed_club, so we > can ram through a proposal? Which is mostly a pointless exercise in game theory. Just document it, add it to the AU tagging guidelines and sneak it onto the map features page at some stage in the future when it is in wide use. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
Ok, so who's going to write up a description of licensed_club, so we can ram through a proposal? Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > >> Now, I don't mind if you > >> want to tag the thing "A, B, C, member_club". > > > > Yes, I would prefer to do that. > > Ok, it sounds like we have found some agreement. > > "Where A, B and C are simple tags, and Z is a complex tag whose > meaning can be construed from the presence of A, B and C: > Preferred tagging: A, B, C, Z > Acceptable, but dispreferred shorthand: Z" Basically...or, in my words, "where Z is a kind of object that may be classified by a set of characteristics (A, B, C, ...), the characteristics A, B, C, etc should be tagged. Then, if desired and justifiable, add an additional redundant tag." > > 1) let say a user wants to find (or render) features that are, say, "A > > and B". This isn't easy to do if A and B aren't explicitly tagged, but > > only "A, B and C", or "A, not B and generally C", "C but with a gravel > > surface", "B except on Tuesdays unless tagged with X", "A and > > well-engineered for bicycles", etc. > > Yes, but I think you ignore the tradeoff. It's like saying "I like > taking planes rather than trains, because they get me places quicker". > Well, yes, but they cost more. You want 10 different tags assigned for > one object because it's "more powerful". Well, yes, but it costs more. > More time and effort. That's less time and effort that could be spent > on other things. So it's a tradeoff. Editor presets. Etcetera. I don't see a high cost involved in using more explicit tags, especially if it saves us spending "effort" sifting through the wiki trying to work out, say, what a "cycleway" really is :P. > > 2) the need for complex tag definitions in the wiki is lessened. I > > think this can help us avoid future footway/cycleway-type problems. > > I'm not sure that's the cause of the problem, but I probably need to > do more research. I'm still unclear on whether anyone actually uses > the definition of "path" that is so painstakingly documented. Cool, let us know what you conclude... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, John Smith wrote: > >>> Yep, cool, it says it's run by an "incorporated association". > >> > >> That usually means not-for-profit organisation... > > > > Um, exactly. > > Just pointing out another potential diff between existing amenity tags > (like pub, resteraunt etc) and clubs... I couldn't find a decent definition of a licensed club, but the blurb off clubsqld site was close. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:04 PM, John Henderson wrote: > > www.irishclub.com.au > > Yep, cool, it says it's run by an "incorporated association". > > (10,000 members of the canberra irish club...whee!) > > Steve Mount Isa Irish Club has fond memories for me ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
John Smith wrote: > I don't particularly mind which term we use, one that is the most > common in a region/commonly known would make the most sense. > > I've heard both the term registered and licensed clubs... *shrug* > > Anyone have a preference for a particular reason? In my experience "licensed clubs" is the more widely-used term in Australia generally. Of all the suggestions, I think it has the most accurate connotations. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett : > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:25 PM, John Smith wrote: >> 2009/12/15 Steve Bennett : >>> Yep, cool, it says it's run by an "incorporated association". >> >> That usually means not-for-profit organisation... > > Um, exactly. Just pointing out another potential diff between existing amenity tags (like pub, resteraunt etc) and clubs... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:25 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/12/15 Steve Bennett : >> Yep, cool, it says it's run by an "incorporated association". > > That usually means not-for-profit organisation... Um, exactly. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett : > Yep, cool, it says it's run by an "incorporated association". That usually means not-for-profit organisation... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett : > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:46 PM, John Smith wrote: >> Or particular ethnic background etc etc etc. > > Example? American Club http://www.bestclubs.com.au/club.aspx?clubId=442 Italian Club http://www.bestclubs.com.au/club.aspx?clubId=618 Mandarin Club http://www.bestclubs.com.au/club.aspx?clubId=447 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:04 PM, John Henderson wrote: > www.irishclub.com.au Yep, cool, it says it's run by an "incorporated association". (10,000 members of the canberra irish club...whee!) Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
Steve Bennett wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:46 PM, John Smith wrote: >> Or particular ethnic background etc etc etc. > > Example? www.hellenicclub.com.au www.irishclub.com.au John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:46 PM, John Smith wrote: > Or particular ethnic background etc etc etc. Example? Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett : > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:17 PM, John Smith wrote: >> These buildings are a particular type of location, they are unique in >> a category of there own, even if they do share features with other >> establishments that are currently tagged. > > Not that I'm disagreeing, but for an argument like that to be > convincing, you have to explain what makes it unique. *Everything* is I said/meant unique from things currently docuemented on the map features page, using your logic pubs in Qld are different than pubs in NSW because diff state governments license them. > I'm satisfied that a "licensed_club": > - is a venue where members, their guests, and some members of the public can > go > - has a restaurant and bar > - often has pokies > - is affiliated with a non-profit organisation such as a sports club, > the RSL etc. Or particular ethnic background etc etc etc. > For these reasons it is clearly not just a "pub", "bar" or "restaurant". Or scout hall :) > Because "licensed" implies alcohol. And "registered" implies very > little. To the casual reader, anyway. licensed would also apply to having pokies, but licensed also applies to pubs for the same reason, as for registered more or less means the same thing in this context, but people from different backgrounds will be used to different terms as I've pointed out in other emails how things you know as normal wouldn't be normal for me even though we're both in Australia, it's just whatever you are used to and the language used most commonly in your area of Australia. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:17 PM, John Smith wrote: > These buildings are a particular type of location, they are unique in > a category of there own, even if they do share features with other > establishments that are currently tagged. Not that I'm disagreeing, but for an argument like that to be convincing, you have to explain what makes it unique. *Everything* is unique. We could just as easily say that rugby clubs are different from cricket clubs, so they need special tags. And then, rugby union clubs are different from league ones. And for that matter, QLD ones really are distinct from NSW ones I'm satisfied that a "licensed_club": - is a venue where members, their guests, and some members of the public can go - has a restaurant and bar - often has pokies - is affiliated with a non-profit organisation such as a sports club, the RSL etc. For these reasons it is clearly not just a "pub", "bar" or "restaurant". >Anyone have a preference for a particular reason? Because "licensed" implies alcohol. And "registered" implies very little. To the casual reader, anyway. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/15 Roy Wallace : > Well, "complexity" is subjective here, so sorry if it seems I'm > exaggerating in this situation. But the point I'm making is that, > rather than inventing a new tag to encapsulate, e.g. "buildings that > are...a restaurant, bar, and gambling location [and] are members These buildings are a particular type of location, they are unique in a category of there own, even if they do share features with other establishments that are currently tagged. > only", i.e. "buildings that are A, B, C and D", I personally think > tagging A, B, C and D is a more powerful solution, for reasons I've > already described. Just an idea - I'm happy to be proven wrong. But you left out important option G! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett : > I like it too. I wouldn't worry about trying to match the legal term > used by a particular jurisdiction. I don't particularly mind which term we use, one that is the most common in a region/commonly known would make the most sense. I've heard both the term registered and licensed clubs... *shrug* Anyone have a preference for a particular reason? > Btw, it's "licensed" not "licenced" (yes, even in Australian/British > spelling). Which is why they invented spell checkers :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Liz wrote: > I favour licenced_club because of the word association with "liquor licence" > and I am looking for another tag to replace amenity=pub that I have been using > and isn't the best descriptor I like it too. I wouldn't worry about trying to match the legal term used by a particular jurisdiction. Btw, it's "licensed" not "licenced" (yes, even in Australian/British spelling). Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Steve Bennett wrote: > > > Well now it's morning, I'm sure the correct term is licensed club eg > > > http://www.clubssa.com.au/ > > > so amenity=licensed_club seems like a good idea to me > > > then add in the pokies, restaurants, etc in sub tags > > > > I support this. Does it include RSLs? > > > > Steve > > yes, this includes RSLs, Italian Clubs, Irish Clubs, Footy Clubs > whatever is a club with a licence to sell alcohol > so it excludes the scout hall > there is another term "registered clubs" which appears to be the legal term in NSW http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/rca1976173/s4.html#registered_club "registered club" means a club that holds a club licence. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/rca1976173/s4.html#club_licence "club licence" means a club licence granted under the Liquor Act 2007 . clubsqld.com.au uses both terms "Clubs Queensland is the peak industry body representing registered and licensed clubs in Queensland.The organisation, and those working within it, proudly represents the interests of community clubs throughout the State including sporting clubs (bowls, golf, rugby league, etc), RSL and ex-services clubs, surf lifesaving clubs, workers, business, ethnic, and other community clubs. " I favour licenced_club because of the word association with "liquor licence" and I am looking for another tag to replace amenity=pub that I have been using and isn't the best descriptor ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Steve Bennett wrote: > > Well now it's morning, I'm sure the correct term is licensed club eg > > http://www.clubssa.com.au/ > > so amenity=licensed_club seems like a good idea to me > > then add in the pokies, restaurants, etc in sub tags > > I support this. Does it include RSLs? > > Steve yes, this includes RSLs, Italian Clubs, Irish Clubs, Footy Clubs whatever is a club with a licence to sell alcohol so it excludes the scout hall ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > Well now it's morning, I'm sure the correct term is licensed club eg > http://www.clubssa.com.au/ > so amenity=licensed_club seems like a good idea to me > then add in the pokies, restaurants, etc in sub tags I support this. Does it include RSLs? Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: >> Because otherwise, the logic "if A and B and C then member_club" needs >> to be encoded in each and every renderer. > > Ah, I understand your thinking now. > >> Now, I don't mind if you >> want to tag the thing "A, B, C, member_club". > > Yes, I would prefer to do that. Ok, it sounds like we have found some agreement. "Where A, B and C are simple tags, and Z is a complex tag whose meaning can be construed from the presence of A, B and C: Preferred tagging: A, B, C, Z Acceptable, but dispreferred shorthand: Z" > 1) let say a user wants to find (or render) features that are, say, "A > and B". This isn't easy to do if A and B aren't explicitly tagged, but > only "A, B and C", or "A, not B and generally C", "C but with a gravel > surface", "B except on Tuesdays unless tagged with X", "A and > well-engineered for bicycles", etc. Yes, but I think you ignore the tradeoff. It's like saying "I like taking planes rather than trains, because they get me places quicker". Well, yes, but they cost more. You want 10 different tags assigned for one object because it's "more powerful". Well, yes, but it costs more. More time and effort. That's less time and effort that could be spent on other things. So it's a tradeoff. Now, if you *want* to spend the time and effort on all that tagging, you're very welcome. My personal preference is to tag thin and wide - tag lots of things, but only one or two tags per thing. So obviously to accommodate both of us, a tagging scheme like the one we appear to have agreed on above, is needed. > 2) the need for complex tag definitions in the wiki is lessened. I > think this can help us avoid future footway/cycleway-type problems. I'm not sure that's the cause of the problem, but I probably need to do more research. I'm still unclear on whether anyone actually uses the definition of "path" that is so painstakingly documented. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:08 AM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/12/15 Roy Wallace : >> Thought I might chip in to me this seems to be a matter of trying >> to cram a complex and ambiguous meaning into a single tag. I couldn't >> help but be reminded of the footway/cycleway situation. Is it not >> possible to *tag* what we are trying to indicate (using more than one >> tag if necessary), rather than to create a *definition in the wiki* >> that says what we're trying to indicate (and using a single tag)? > > What is so complex exactly about this situation? Well, "complexity" is subjective here, so sorry if it seems I'm exaggerating in this situation. But the point I'm making is that, rather than inventing a new tag to encapsulate, e.g. "buildings that are...a restaurant, bar, and gambling location [and] are members only", i.e. "buildings that are A, B, C and D", I personally think tagging A, B, C and D is a more powerful solution, for reasons I've already described. Just an idea - I'm happy to be proven wrong. > Or more to the point, how do any sport or other similar clubs differ > significantly enough to warrant multiple tags? I don't know. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: >> For example, take a close look at the proposed definition of >> "member_club" - is it in the form of "if A and B and C, it's a >> member_club"? If so, isn't it a better solution to *tag* A and B and >> C? There's no need to create complex definitions. So why do it? > > Because otherwise, the logic "if A and B and C then member_club" needs > to be encoded in each and every renderer. Ah, I understand your thinking now. > Now, I don't mind if you > want to tag the thing "A, B, C, member_club". Yes, I would prefer to do that. > But tagging it "A, B, C" > and expecting all renderers to give you the right result will not > work. Even less so when you expect a certain icon or something to be > displayed. Can you think of any examples where it does? > > (Oh wait, Roy believes that we shouldn't ever think about renderers, > they're totally irrelevant. Just tag what you want to tag.) I think of "renderers" as just one possible class of OSM data "user". Given this perspective, I'm more concerned with getting the data right than with getting the rendering right. That's not to say rendering isn't important. I mean, if you get the data right first, it is then easier to use (e.g. render) the data. Not the other way around. And, for me, having A, B and C tagged instead of (or as well as) "member_club" is much more powerful (in general) for a data user. There are at least two main reasons why: 1) let say a user wants to find (or render) features that are, say, "A and B". This isn't easy to do if A and B aren't explicitly tagged, but only "A, B and C", or "A, not B and generally C", "C but with a gravel surface", "B except on Tuesdays unless tagged with X", "A and well-engineered for bicycles", etc. 2) the need for complex tag definitions in the wiki is lessened. I think this can help us avoid future footway/cycleway-type problems. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, you wrote: > Similar organisations exist in many countries, you might as well have > a specific tag for them, like "servicemens_club" or something. The > definition could be "A venue providing cheap food and bingo nights in > the company of old people." > Well now it's morning, I'm sure the correct term is licensed club eg http://www.clubssa.com.au/ so amenity=licensed_club seems like a good idea to me then add in the pokies, restaurants, etc in sub tags -- You will always get the greatest recognition for the job you least like. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/15 Roy Wallace : > Thought I might chip in to me this seems to be a matter of trying > to cram a complex and ambiguous meaning into a single tag. I couldn't > help but be reminded of the footway/cycleway situation. Is it not > possible to *tag* what we are trying to indicate (using more than one > tag if necessary), rather than to create a *definition in the wiki* > that says what we're trying to indicate (and using a single tag)? What is so complex exactly about this situation? Or more to the point, how do any sport or other similar clubs differ significantly enough to warrant multiple tags? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/15 Steve Bennett : > (Oh wait, Roy believes that we shouldn't ever think about renderers, > they're totally irrelevant. Just tag what you want to tag.) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > For example, take a close look at the proposed definition of > "member_club" - is it in the form of "if A and B and C, it's a > member_club"? If so, isn't it a better solution to *tag* A and B and > C? There's no need to create complex definitions. So why do it? Because otherwise, the logic "if A and B and C then member_club" needs to be encoded in each and every renderer. Now, I don't mind if you want to tag the thing "A, B, C, member_club". But tagging it "A, B, C" and expecting all renderers to give you the right result will not work. Even less so when you expect a certain icon or something to be displayed. Can you think of any examples where it does? (Oh wait, Roy believes that we shouldn't ever think about renderers, they're totally irrelevant. Just tag what you want to tag.) Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:10 PM, John Smith wrote: > >> So... sports_centre for the actual sporting facilities, something_club >> for the commercial bit? Maybe social_club? "club_rooms", while it >> sounded good for the buildings members genuinely use for their >> meetings and stuff, doesn't sound right for a building the public >> comes to for a feed. > > As covered before, you should be a member to use the club and it's > facilities (the restaurant etc), which is why they are member(ship) > club(s), so amenity=member_club. Thought I might chip in to me this seems to be a matter of trying to cram a complex and ambiguous meaning into a single tag. I couldn't help but be reminded of the footway/cycleway situation. Is it not possible to *tag* what we are trying to indicate (using more than one tag if necessary), rather than to create a *definition in the wiki* that says what we're trying to indicate (and using a single tag)? For example, take a close look at the proposed definition of "member_club" - is it in the form of "if A and B and C, it's a member_club"? If so, isn't it a better solution to *tag* A and B and C? There's no need to create complex definitions. So why do it? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/14 Steve Bennett : > Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was suggesting using separate tags for the > two. There's not all that much to be gained by stretching one tag to > cover two different things. Does an RSL really have much in common > with the local cricket club? Well, maybe it does - if we're talking > about their bistro/pokies bit. We're not talking about the actual sporting clubs that these venues may support, we're talking about a particular type of building and what goes on inside it, in this instance there is almost no difference between them. > So... sports_centre for the actual sporting facilities, something_club > for the commercial bit? Maybe social_club? "club_rooms", while it > sounded good for the buildings members genuinely use for their > meetings and stuff, doesn't sound right for a building the public > comes to for a feed. As covered before, you should be a member to use the club and it's facilities (the restaurant etc), which is why they are member(ship) club(s), so amenity=member_club. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:05 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/12/14 Steve Bennett : >> Similar organisations exist in many countries, you might as well have >> a specific tag for them, like "servicemens_club" or something. The >> definition could be "A venue providing cheap food and bingo nights in >> the company of old people." > > They aren't just related to servicemen/ex-servicemen, which is why I > picked member_club to cover sporting and other clubs... Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was suggesting using separate tags for the two. There's not all that much to be gained by stretching one tag to cover two different things. Does an RSL really have much in common with the local cricket club? Well, maybe it does - if we're talking about their bistro/pokies bit. So... sports_centre for the actual sporting facilities, something_club for the commercial bit? Maybe social_club? "club_rooms", while it sounded good for the buildings members genuinely use for their meetings and stuff, doesn't sound right for a building the public comes to for a feed. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/14 Steve Bennett : > Similar organisations exist in many countries, you might as well have > a specific tag for them, like "servicemens_club" or something. The > definition could be "A venue providing cheap food and bingo nights in > the company of old people." They aren't just related to servicemen/ex-servicemen, which is why I picked member_club to cover sporting and other clubs... http://www.bestclubs.com.au/ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:58 PM, John Smith wrote: > As for tag naming > > amenity=member_club > > Which is also a little vague, but it is a valid description, would > just need to be documented properly. > > Checking on wikipedia there is a similar notion in NZ, at least in > terms of RSLs, they call them RSAs: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_New_Zealand_Returned_and_Services%27_Association Similar organisations exist in many countries, you might as well have a specific tag for them, like "servicemens_club" or something. The definition could be "A venue providing cheap food and bingo nights in the company of old people." Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/14 Steve Bennett : > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:44 PM, John Smith > wrote: >> Dunno about metro areas, but most pubs in rural areas will still rent rooms. > > Yep, but we're concerned with the wiki definition of the "pub" tag, > not what "pub" means in general. And secondly, we're not concerned > with the wiki definition of the "pub" tag, we're discussing these > pseudo sports clubs :) Just adding to the discussion of why clubs aren't and shouldn't be tagged the same as pubs, so it was relevant... As for tag naming amenity=member_club Which is also a little vague, but it is a valid description, would just need to be documented properly. Checking on wikipedia there is a similar notion in NZ, at least in terms of RSLs, they call them RSAs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_New_Zealand_Returned_and_Services%27_Association ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:44 PM, John Smith wrote: > Dunno about metro areas, but most pubs in rural areas will still rent rooms. Yep, but we're concerned with the wiki definition of the "pub" tag, not what "pub" means in general. And secondly, we're not concerned with the wiki definition of the "pub" tag, we're discussing these pseudo sports clubs :) Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/14 Liz : > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Steve Bennett wrote: >> > "Pub" is short for "public house" and is a hotel, a place where anyone >> > can get a meal, a drink and a room. Bars don't have rooms. >> >> That's a historical definition that I doubt many people would >> appreciate these days. > but i think that it is still legally valid in NSW and Q Dunno about metro areas, but most pubs in rural areas will still rent rooms. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Steve Bennett wrote: > > "Pub" is short for "public house" and is a hotel, a place where anyone > > can get a meal, a drink and a room. Bars don't have rooms. > > That's a historical definition that I doubt many people would > appreciate these days. but i think that it is still legally valid in NSW and Q ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Sam Couter wrote: > "Pub" is short for "public house" and is a hotel, a place where anyone > can get a meal, a drink and a room. Bars don't have rooms. That's a historical definition that I doubt many people would appreciate these days. > In the ACT, a club is the only place you can go to play a poker machine. Right. So...using "club" to hint at pokies is complicated. > Clubs are not always sports-oriented, there are labour clubs, trademen's > clubs, fishermen's clubs, clubs centered around ethnic groups, etc. > Access restrictions to members, their guests and out-of-area visitors is > a significant difference compared to pubs. Clubs usually have dress codes > and other rules that pubs may not. They are heavily regulated by > State-based legislation and are obviously different (when you visit them) > from a pub or bar. At one extreme, yes. The OP described the other end of the spectrum, where they're really not so different from gaming venues. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
James Livingston wrote: > I agree that they're not really the same as a "normal" pub, but I don't know > how'd you'd really describe the difference other than the "tenuous connection > to some club and officially members only" thing. "Pub" is short for "public house" and is a hotel, a place where anyone can get a meal, a drink and a room. Bars don't have rooms. In the ACT, a club is the only place you can go to play a poker machine. Clubs are not always sports-oriented, there are labour clubs, trademen's clubs, fishermen's clubs, clubs centered around ethnic groups, etc. Access restrictions to members, their guests and out-of-area visitors is a significant difference compared to pubs. Clubs usually have dress codes and other rules that pubs may not. They are heavily regulated by State-based legislation and are obviously different (when you visit them) from a pub or bar. -- Sam Couter | mailto:s...@couter.id.au OpenPGP fingerprint: A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05 5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/14 James Livingston : > I'm not fussed on the wording, but I think something for clubs would be good. > You could probably use it for things like scout halls and so on too, if there > isn't a tag for that already. Scout halls don't have bars, resteraunts or pokies so I don't think they fit too well in this category :) I tagged the last one amenity=scout_hut I should add a request to have them rendered I suppose. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On 14/12/2009, at 7:10 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:03 PM, James Livingston wrote: >> I'm sure that there was a tag for the first, although I can't find it now. >> Something like leisure=club_rooms or similar, which related to a sporting >> group but wasn't necessarily where the sports themselves were played, which >> would be leisure=sports_centre/pitch. Possibly I just made it up when I >> tagged some. > > I like the sound of club_rooms. Or I was going to propose club_house, > but yours is better. I'm not fussed on the wording, but I think something for clubs would be good. You could probably use it for things like scout halls and so on too, if there isn't a tag for that already. > It would also be nice to have club= for the whole ground including any > pitches. So a bowling club might have club=yes, sport=bowls, > name=Fobar Bowls club, on the whole area. Then, leisure=pitch, > sport=bowls on the bowling green. Then amenity=club_rooms for the > building with restaurants etc inside. There is a "site" relation which might work here, maybe something like relation: type=site, name=Foobar Bowls Club way: leisure=pitch; sport=bowls way: amenity=club_rooms; building=yes >> The lines are a bit messy, but my understanding is that basically: >> * if you can only get drinks with a meal, it's amenity=restaurant >> * if you can't get a meal (only snacks) it's amenity=bar >> * if you can get either without the other it's amenity=pub > > Oh, interesting. I had thought the pub/bar distinction was just the > usual fuzzy one: bars are more upmarket. "Officially" it probably is fuzzy, but someone described that distinction to me once (on #osm I think) and it seemed to make sense to me. Of course you get the places which are a restaurant during the day and some nights, and become a bar on Friday/Saturday night, but it mostly works. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/14 Steve Bennett : > It would also be nice to have club= for the whole ground including any > pitches. So a bowling club might have club=yes, sport=bowls, > name=Fobar Bowls club, on the whole area. Then, leisure=pitch, > sport=bowls on the bowling green. Then amenity=club_rooms for the > building with restaurants etc inside. Where possible it's better to not invent new tags just because variations in language usage. I'd lean towards the following: leisure=sports_centre sport=* > But really, there ought to be support for multiple amenities on one > tag (amenity=restaurant,pub,pokies). Anyone want to agitate for > support? It becomes messy to deal with multiple values for the same tag, the SQL lookups become unreasonably slow. > Oh, interesting. I had thought the pub/bar distinction was just the > usual fuzzy one: bars are more upmarket. There is already a amenity=nightclub and amenity=stripclub tag on the map features wiki page. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:03 PM, James Livingston wrote: > I'm sure that there was a tag for the first, although I can't find it now. > Something like leisure=club_rooms or similar, which related to a sporting > group but wasn't necessarily where the sports themselves were played, which > would be leisure=sports_centre/pitch. Possibly I just made it up when I > tagged some. I like the sound of club_rooms. Or I was going to propose club_house, but yours is better. It would also be nice to have club= for the whole ground including any pitches. So a bowling club might have club=yes, sport=bowls, name=Fobar Bowls club, on the whole area. Then, leisure=pitch, sport=bowls on the bowling green. Then amenity=club_rooms for the building with restaurants etc inside. But really, there ought to be support for multiple amenities on one tag (amenity=restaurant,pub,pokies). Anyone want to agitate for support? > > The lines are a bit messy, but my understanding is that basically: > * if you can only get drinks with a meal, it's amenity=restaurant > * if you can't get a meal (only snacks) it's amenity=bar > * if you can get either without the other it's amenity=pub Oh, interesting. I had thought the pub/bar distinction was just the usual fuzzy one: bars are more upmarket. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On 14/12/2009, at 6:58 PM, Stephen Hope wrote: > The reason I thought they may be a QLD thing is the state Government > here licences them a bit differently from your average pub (or used > to, I haven't checked lately). Thus the (official) members only > rules, connection to a sport club, etc. It's the same in NSW, the ACT and probably elsewhere. access=members? (and guests, and "foreigners" if you like more than X km away, outside the ACT, etc). > One reason I was wondering about if they have a different tag, is > because they have a different vibe to your average restaurant / pub. young_people_getting_stupidly_drunk=no? ;) I agree that they're not really the same as a "normal" pub, but I don't know how'd you'd really describe the difference other than the "tenuous connection to some club and officially members only" thing. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/14 Liz : > trouble with the combine amenities approach is that we can only have one > amenity on a node, but amenities are getting so broad, there is often need for > more than one amenity on a node Just do what I did for the BP nodes. amenity:atm=yes or just atm=yes as was suggested. so amenity=*_club poker_machines=20 resteraunt=8 cusine=pub_food bar=2 kids_area=yes etc etc etc ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On 14/12/2009, at 6:41 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > I think my central argument is this: Your "sports_club" venue could be > - a sports facility with no eating/drinking/gambling facilities for the public > - an eating/drinking/gambling venue for the public with no sports facilities > - or both. > > This looks like a case for two distinct tags. I'm sure that there was a tag for the first, although I can't find it now. Something like leisure=club_rooms or similar, which related to a sporting group but wasn't necessarily where the sports themselves were played, which would be leisure=sports_centre/pitch. Possibly I just made it up when I tagged some. The lines are a bit messy, but my understanding is that basically: * if you can only get drinks with a meal, it's amenity=restaurant * if you can't get a meal (only snacks) it's amenity=bar * if you can get either without the other it's amenity=pub These locations sounds like a pub to me, and the bigger ones could have other amenity=bar and amenity=restaurant inside them if needed. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/14 Stephen Hope : > The reason I thought they may be a QLD thing is the state Government > here licences them a bit differently from your average pub (or used > to, I haven't checked lately). Thus the (official) members only > rules, connection to a sport club, etc. This connection can be quite In NSW at least you can visit up to 3 times before you have to become a member, unless it's for a special event like a wedding etc, or if you live more than 5km away, so you just claim to live in some other town near by :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, John Smith wrote: > > I'm still trying to see how this is very different from "amenity=pub" > > with another "amenity=pokies" (or whatever), and "name=Smithtown > > Crocodiles Sports Club". Would it render differently from a pub? > > That's the whole point, they aren't a pub and they should render > differently. Even if they don't render immediately we can submit a > feature enhancement to have them render with a different pictogram. I've been tagging them 'pub' but i agree that they aren't 'pub' because legally they aren't for public access, (NSW members + travellers) then i put in another node with the same name for the bowling green or golf course or foooty ground. trouble with the combine amenities approach is that we can only have one amenity on a node, but amenities are getting so broad, there is often need for more than one amenity on a node Liz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
The reason I thought they may be a QLD thing is the state Government here licences them a bit differently from your average pub (or used to, I haven't checked lately). Thus the (official) members only rules, connection to a sport club, etc. This connection can be quite vague - the one nearest my mothers place is called the Caboolture Sports Club - but is not anywhere near a sports ground, and I actually have no idea whatsoever what sport it is actually attached to. But it worth it to them, as they get concessions in the licencing of pokies etc that is otherwise harder to get. One reason I was wondering about if they have a different tag, is because they have a different vibe to your average restaurant / pub. The clientele tends to be older, and a bit more staid. I know people who regularly go to these that would never step into a normal club, and very rarely eat at a normal restaurant. So far I've just marked them as restaurant, for lack of anything better. Stephen 2009/12/14 James Livingston : > They're definitely not a QLD thing, but I think they are a very Australian > thing. As well as sports clubs, you have the Surf Life Saving Clubs, RSLs and > so on. Although a lot only have one bar and restaurant, there are a lot that > are much bigger - if I recall correctly, the Bankstown RSL has something like > 6 or 8 restaurants in it. > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/14 Steve Bennett : > Yeah, agreed that RSL's, SLSC's etc are in the same category. Are they > really different from a Zagame's type venue, though? No idea what Zagame's is, so can't comment, you seem to think they are similar/same thing so we need to figure out a suitable tag for it. > I think my central argument is this: Your "sports_club" venue could be > - a sports facility with no eating/drinking/gambling facilities for the public > - an eating/drinking/gambling venue for the public with no sports facilities > - or both. There is already sport=* tags, we don't need to duplicate that, sporting clubs, RSLs and the like are something completely different and I can't think of a good generic tag for them at present, I'm pestering others for ideas though. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:20 PM, James Livingston wrote: > They're definitely not a QLD thing, but I think they are a very Australian > thing. As well as sports clubs, you have the Surf Life Saving Clubs, RSLs and > so on. Although a lot only have one bar and restaurant, there are a lot that > are much bigger - if I recall correctly, the Bankstown RSL has something like > 6 or 8 restaurants in it. Yeah, agreed that RSL's, SLSC's etc are in the same category. Are they really different from a Zagame's type venue, though? > I asked this a while back (possibly on IRC not on the list) and no-one really > knew. In some cases, particularly SLSCs, the original purpose would still be > very useful to have marked, in that case because it tells you where the > patrolled part of the beach will be near. IMHO, the tag for the active life saving part should be different. These two functions of "active location of sporting/lifesaving facilities" and "pub and gambling venue operating under the banner of a sports club" are really different. Along the foreshore here there are various yacht clubs - genuine locations where boats are stored etc. I'd want to tag *that* sports_club, and have a separate tag nearby like amenity=club_bistro or something if there was a restaurant/pokies venue. I think my central argument is this: Your "sports_club" venue could be - a sports facility with no eating/drinking/gambling facilities for the public - an eating/drinking/gambling venue for the public with no sports facilities - or both. This looks like a case for two distinct tags. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/14 James Livingston : > I asked this a while back (possibly on IRC not on the list) and no-one really > knew. In some cases, particularly SLSCs, the original purpose would still be > very useful to have marked, in that case because it tells you where the > patrolled part of the beach will be near. Personally I'd still tag SLSCs the same as any other sports club, RSLs are more or less still the same thing but are ex-servicemen based instead of sport based. amenity=club is too ambiguious ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On 14/12/2009, at 12:10 PM, Stephen Hope wrote: > I'm looking for some guidance on tagging for "Sports Clubs". I'm not > sure if these are an Australian wide thing, or just a QLD invention. They're definitely not a QLD thing, but I think they are a very Australian thing. As well as sports clubs, you have the Surf Life Saving Clubs, RSLs and so on. Although a lot only have one bar and restaurant, there are a lot that are much bigger - if I recall correctly, the Bankstown RSL has something like 6 or 8 restaurants in it. > I'm talking about the buildings that are run by (or for), are named > after, and support a sports club or organisation, but actually don't > have any thing to do with sport at that point. They're really a > restaurant, bar, and gambling location. Theoretically, they are > members only, but I've never seen anybody turned away, somebody will > sign them in. > > What tags are people using for these? I asked this a while back (possibly on IRC not on the list) and no-one really knew. In some cases, particularly SLSCs, the original purpose would still be very useful to have marked, in that case because it tells you where the patrolled part of the beach will be near. For the really big ones, marking the building with the name, and putting various amenity=* inside it might be good. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/14 Steve Bennett : > I'm still trying to see how this is very different from "amenity=pub" > with another "amenity=pokies" (or whatever), and "name=Smithtown > Crocodiles Sports Club". Would it render differently from a pub? That's the whole point, they aren't a pub and they should render differently. Even if they don't render immediately we can submit a feature enhancement to have them render with a different pictogram. > What's the significance of the different tag - does someone with a map > need to know that this pub+pokies+restaurant is somehow special? With that sort of logic we don't need a tag for half the stuff in the database we can just combine tags because they're similar :) > OTOH, a tag that combines "pub+pokies+restaurant" *would* be useful, > as there are rather a lot of them. Regardless of whether they're > associated with sports clubs. Zagames (google it if needed) is another > example: a commercial venue combining restaurant, bar, and pokies. I > guess they're known as "entertainment venues" or "bistros" or > whatever. THe name= would distinguish them. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 5:31 PM, John Smith wrote: > That's what he's talking about, but most of those places have pokies, > but aren't exclusively pokie dens. >buildings that are run by (or for), are named >after, and support a sports club or organisation, but actually don't >have any thing to do with sport at that point. They're really a >restaurant, bar, and gambling location. I'm still trying to see how this is very different from "amenity=pub" with another "amenity=pokies" (or whatever), and "name=Smithtown Crocodiles Sports Club". Would it render differently from a pub? What's the significance of the different tag - does someone with a map need to know that this pub+pokies+restaurant is somehow special? OTOH, a tag that combines "pub+pokies+restaurant" *would* be useful, as there are rather a lot of them. Regardless of whether they're associated with sports clubs. Zagames (google it if needed) is another example: a commercial venue combining restaurant, bar, and pokies. I guess they're known as "entertainment venues" or "bistros" or whatever. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/14 Steve Bennett : > I'd double check that term. I haven't heard it used in this way. To > me, a "sports club" is something like the local footy club buildings, > the surf livesaving club, the bowls club... That is, focused very much > on the members playing sport, not playing pokies. That's what he's talking about, but most of those places have pokies, but aren't exclusively pokie dens. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:39 PM, John Smith wrote: > I tagged one in NSW a while back, I just tagged it as > amenity=restaurant but that probably isn't the best thing to tag it > with. > > Might be worth tagging them as amenity=sport_club and then adding some > details to the wiki about it. I'd double check that term. I haven't heard it used in this way. To me, a "sports club" is something like the local footy club buildings, the surf livesaving club, the bowls club... That is, focused very much on the members playing sport, not playing pokies. So, if you want to tag a commercial gaming venue and restaurant, "sports_club" seems like a really confusing tag to use, for the rest of the world. Of the existing tags, "amenity=pub" seems the best fit. Suggestions for new tags: amenity=private_club (access=public :)) amenity=club amenity=pokies (let's be honest) If this kind of thing is specific to a region, it would make sense to use a regionally specific tag, I have to say, rather than having the same tag used to mean different things in different parts of the world. Some more general "organisation=" tags would be very useful though. I still don't see how to tag non-profit clubs, charities etc. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Sports Clubs
2009/12/14 Stephen Hope : > I'm looking for some guidance on tagging for "Sports Clubs". I'm not > sure if these are an Australian wide thing, or just a QLD invention. > > I'm talking about the buildings that are run by (or for), are named > after, and support a sports club or organisation, but actually don't > have any thing to do with sport at that point. They're really a > restaurant, bar, and gambling location. Theoretically, they are > members only, but I've never seen anybody turned away, somebody will > sign them in. > > What tags are people using for these? I tagged one in NSW a while back, I just tagged it as amenity=restaurant but that probably isn't the best thing to tag it with. Might be worth tagging them as amenity=sport_club and then adding some details to the wiki about it. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Sports Clubs
I'm looking for some guidance on tagging for "Sports Clubs". I'm not sure if these are an Australian wide thing, or just a QLD invention. I'm talking about the buildings that are run by (or for), are named after, and support a sports club or organisation, but actually don't have any thing to do with sport at that point. They're really a restaurant, bar, and gambling location. Theoretically, they are members only, but I've never seen anybody turned away, somebody will sign them in. What tags are people using for these? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
