[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Tag capacity on benches without separation or not?
Hi, after recollecting some courage, here a second attempt. I've drafted two opposing proposals on whether capacity/seats should be tagged on benches without a functional separation into seats or not. The purpose is to find out if there is a community consensus on this question. "Sure, it's fine to tag capacity, even if there is now functional separation": https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bench:_Tag_capacity,_even_if_no_separation "No way! -- This is not objective": https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bench:_Do_not_tag_capacity_if_no_separation *NOTE:* Please discuss *both* proposals on the discussion page with the positive statement: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Bench:_Do_not_tag_capacity_if_no_separation ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Tag capacity on benches without separation or not?
Le 05.10.22 à 18:57, martianfreeloader a écrit : I've drafted two opposing proposals on whether capacity/seats should be tagged on benches without a functional separation into seats or not. I admire your energy, but I don't think a proposal is made to say what people are allowed or not allowed to do. The proposals are about tags, seat exist, capacity exist, so what ? if i want to estimate the number of places on a bench, i estimate the number of places on a bench :) otherwise you might want to specify that it is forbidden to estimate the height of a tree if you don't climb to the top of it with a measuring device having the precision you require? more seriously, I thought it was going to come out with a proposal for a tag to describe if it's separate seats or if it's continuous (even if I personally don't find this info useful, but it's up to each one to inform it) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Tag capacity on benches without separation or not?
Can we not finish this useless discussion? The amenity=bench tag was created just for that purpose, benches. Some time later someone created the key seats to indicate how many people can sit on a bench, adding explicitly that the key capacity should not be used in that case. The addition that key seats should be used only for benches that have separate seats by an author who obviously had not looked at the actual usage of the two tags. (this has been reverted in the wiki) The proposal to replace seats with capacity, keeping exactly the same meaning does not make any sense to me. A different argument is if we need a separate tag for benches with separated single-person seats (I guess we are talking about waiting chairs or multiseat chairs). This could amenity=chair (used 800 times only) with a new default of seats=1, and an optional seats=x BTW. It is not clear if seats is a noun or a verb. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Tag capacity on benches without separation or not?
Hi Volker, Thanks for your comments. On 05/10/2022 23:01, Volker Schmidt wrote: Can we not finish this useless discussion? 1) That's what the proposal is trying to do. 2) You're free to abstain from any discussion you consider useless; but since you haven't: The amenity=bench tag was created just for that purpose, benches. Some time later someone created the key seats to indicate how many people can sit on a bench, adding explicitly that the key capacity should not be used in that case. The addition that key seats should be used only for benches that have separate seats by an author who obviously had not looked at the actual usage of the two tags. (this has been reverted in the wiki) Recent contributions to this mailing list gave me the impression that not all mappers share your opinion -- hence the proposal(s). The proposal to replace seats with capacity, keeping exactly the same meaning does not make any sense to me. This is off topic. The proposal you're talking about has been cancelled. As clearly stated in the new proposal, the question of how the name the key is left open. A different argument is if we need a separate tag for benches with separated single-person seats (I guess we are talking about waiting chairs or multiseat chairs). Correct, that is a different discussion and should be discussed in a different thread. Not part of this one. This could amenity=chair (used 800 times only) with a new default of seats=1, and an optional seats=x BTW. It is not clear if seats is a noun or a verb. Irrelevant. As said, the name of the key is not subject of the proposal. (but I think it reads nicely both as a verb and a noun) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
