Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Rory McCann]

On 06/12/2018 20:49, Mark Wagner wrote:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100 Rory McCann  wrote:

natural=tree? natural=petrified_tree ?


"Tree" is misleading.  "natural=petrified_tree" would be good, except
it gets zero hits in TagInfo.


Nothing wrong with being the first use of a tag.


* Roaring Mountain, a hillside that contains a large number of steam
vents.


place=locality ? natural=peak ? natural=hill ?


"locality" might work, but it's even more generic than "tourist
attraction".  "Peak" or "hill" don't work -- the summit is almost a mile
to the southwest of the actual point of interest.


I don't think so. There are 1.2M+ place=localities in OSM, most just
with a name. A bare "tourism=attraction" is hard to interpret. Is it a
sign? A plaque? A building? "place=locality" says "this whole little
area is the attraction". Which is much more information


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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 07.12.2018 o 12:23, Christoph Hormann pisze:

> The changes i refer to with my comment are in particular the 
> inflationary addition of new POI symbols many of which have been chosen 
> without considering the applicability to represent the feature type in 
> question across different cultures and different geographic settings. 

> The other group of changes i had in mind is the abuse of way_area 
> filtering as an universal cartographic importance rating, in particular 
> for point label placement.  

That sounds to me like a general complaint against changes you don't
like, not the answer about particular problem you have pointed out.

I don't see any of that is a "changed rendering in ways that provide
mapping incentives agaist
the established meaning of the tags" - especially the first one
(location of nodes for areas is already not verifiable, and you have
still not even answered how do you imagine finding the middle of
unverified shape). First of all, you are not referring to meaning of
tags in any way, let alone to changing it.


-- 

"Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]



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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 07 December 2018, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > We have however many other tags where OSM-Carto recently added or
> > changed rendering in ways that provide mapping incentives agaist
> > the established meaning of the tags.
>
> Can you link issues opened on issue tracker that
> report this serious problems?
>
> I looked at it and I failed to find any that would be opened
> recently.

I have not recently followed all of the changes and i mostly stoppend 
reporting problems i see because when i did so these comments were 
universally dismissed and had no influence.

The changes i refer to with my comment are in particular the 
inflationary addition of new POI symbols many of which have been chosen 
without considering the applicability to represent the feature type in 
question across different cultures and different geographic settings.  
Many of these represent just the European urban cliché version of it.

The other group of changes i had in mind is the abuse of way_area 
filtering as an universal cartographic importance rating, in particular 
for point label placement.  The resulting initiatives of label drawing 
through non-verifiable polygon painting can be observed right now.  And 
tourism=attraction was one of the first tags to follow this principle 
in OSM-Carto so it is kind of a forerunner in that regard.

I don't really see much of a chance of a change in direction here (in 
other words:  it will likely get worse before it maybe gets better) but 
i none the less consider it important to point out that this is 
something that is visible right now to people who approach this with an 
open mind and open eyes.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Yves]

Le 7 décembre 2018 08:24:33 GMT+01:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>On 07/12/18 16:09, Yves wrote:
>>
>> Le 6 décembre 2018 23:05:48 GMT+01:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
>a écrit :
>>> On 07/12/18 06:49, Mark Wagner wrote:
 On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100
 Rory McCann  wrote:

> On 06/12/2018 08:38, Mark Wagner wrote:
>> Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair few bare
>> "tourism=attraction" objects.  How would you tag the following:
>>
>> * Boiling River and Firehole Swimming Area, naturally-heated
>> stretches of river that are popular for swimming.
> natural=water + leisure=swimming_area ? natural=water +
> sport=swimming ?
 Seems reasonable.
>>>   Except for sport. Sport implies competition, are there marked
>lanes
>>> for this competition? I'd think not. So I would leave sport out of
>it.
>>>
>> Sport key for competition or leisure, IMHO.
>
>For leisure - swimming requires no marked lines etc (other than a pool
>of water).
>So it has no specific infrastructure .. meaning it should not be in
>OSM?
>

OSM being OSM, you can't avoid a "swimming" tag to be added by a contributor 
one day or another to any piece of water he/she like to use for practice. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Warin]

On 07/12/18 16:09, Yves wrote:


Le 6 décembre 2018 23:05:48 GMT+01:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On 07/12/18 06:49, Mark Wagner wrote:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100
Rory McCann  wrote:


On 06/12/2018 08:38, Mark Wagner wrote:

Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair few bare
"tourism=attraction" objects.  How would you tag the following:

* Boiling River and Firehole Swimming Area, naturally-heated
stretches of river that are popular for swimming.

natural=water + leisure=swimming_area ? natural=water +
sport=swimming ?

Seems reasonable.

  Except for sport. Sport implies competition, are there marked lanes
for this competition? I'd think not. So I would leave sport out of it.


Sport key for competition or leisure, IMHO.


For leisure - swimming requires no marked lines etc (other than a pool of 
water).
So it has no specific infrastructure .. meaning it should not be in OSM?



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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Yves]

Le 6 décembre 2018 23:05:48 GMT+01:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>On 07/12/18 06:49, Mark Wagner wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100
>> Rory McCann  wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/12/2018 08:38, Mark Wagner wrote:
 Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair few bare
 "tourism=attraction" objects.  How would you tag the following:

 * Boiling River and Firehole Swimming Area, naturally-heated
 stretches of river that are popular for swimming.
>>> natural=water + leisure=swimming_area ? natural=water +
>>> sport=swimming ?
>> Seems reasonable.
>
> Except for sport. Sport implies competition, are there marked lanes
>for this competition? I'd think not. So I would leave sport out of it.
>
Sport key for competition or leisure, IMHO.
Yves 

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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

7 Dec 2018, 02:13 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:

> natural=rock and rock=petrified_wood could also work well. I wonder if
> there is already a way to classify types of rock formations, eg
> limestone, granite, basalt?
>
material tag?

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=material 

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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

5 Dec 2018, 11:40 by o...@imagico.de:
> We have however many other tags where OSM-Carto recently added or 
> changed rendering in ways that provide mapping incentives agaist the 
> established meaning of the tags. 
>
Can you link issues opened on issue tracker that
report this serious problems?

I looked at it and I failed to find any that would be opened recently.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

5 Dec 2018, 07:29 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:
> Is it necessary to use tourism=attraction as the only tag for certain 
> features?
>
No, it is never, ever OK. And JOSM validator complains about such tagging.

> Either we need to add an icon or outline, or we can remove this> from the 
> list of rendered features. If the wiki is correct then it can
> be removed, because properly-tagged features should have another, more
> specific tag that can be rendered
>
This is offtopic for this mailing list.

Proper place for discussing rendering in this style is at its issue tracker at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues 

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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

6. Dec 2018 20:49 by mark+...@carnildo.com :


> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100
> Rory McCann <> r...@technomancy.org > > wrote:
>
>> On 06/12/2018 08:38, Mark Wagner wrote:
>> > Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair few bare
>>  
>> > * Petrified Tree, a large, petrified section of tree trunk.  
>>
>> natural=tree? natural=petrified_tree ?
>
> "Tree" is misleading.  "natural=petrified_tree" would be good, except
> it gets zero hits in TagInfo.
>




It is perfectly fine to use tag fo the first time. Happens fairly often to me 


during cleanup of bare tourism=attraction. 





>> > * Norris Geyser Basin, Upper Geyser Basin, Artist Paint Pots,
>> > Fountain Paint Pots, and other named groups of thermal features.  
>>
>> natural=geyser ?
>
> "natural=geyser" is already in use for geysers.  Applying it to entire
> geyser basins would be like using the same tag for both single trees
> and forests.  (It would also be inaccurate, since these basins usually
> contain a mix of geysers, fumaroles, hot springs, and occasionally mud
> pots.)

natural=geyser_basin? 



>> > * Roaring Mountain, a hillside that contains a large number of steam
>> >vents.  
>>
>> place=locality ? natural=peak ? natural=hill ?
>
> "locality" might work, but it's even more generic than "tourist
> attraction".  "Peak" or "hill" don't work -- the summit is almost a mile
> to the southwest of the actual point of interest.
>

natural=geothermal_area () 

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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Rory McCann]

On 06/12/2018 08:38, Mark Wagner wrote:

Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair few bare
"tourism=attraction" objects.  How would you tag the following:

* Boiling River and Firehole Swimming Area, naturally-heated stretches
   of river that are popular for swimming.


natural=water + leisure=swimming_area ? natural=water + sport=swimming ?


* Petrified Tree, a large, petrified section of tree trunk.


natural=tree? natural=petrified_tree ?


* Soda Butte, the rock formation left behind by a long-extinct geyser.


natural=rock ? natural=rock_formation ?


* Norris Geyser Basin, Upper Geyser Basin, Artist Paint Pots, Fountain
   Paint Pots, and other named groups of thermal features.


natural=geyser ?


* Roaring Mountain, a hillside that contains a large number of steam
   vents.


place=locality ? natural=peak ? natural=hill ?


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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 06.12.2018 o 10:47, Christoph Hormann pisze:
> On Thursday 06 December 2018, Yves wrote:
>> tourism=attraction can be added to a lot of features indeed, that's
>> why I think the label rendering in OSM-carto is a good idea because
>> you will probably never find a common rendering to encompass this
>> variety.
> Your desire for this is somewhat understandable - but this clashes with 
> the current documented goals of OSM-Carto and the aim of OSM to map the 
> verifiable geography and not subjective opinions.


The desire to make everything objective and measurable is also clear,
but it's also not a hard requirement. Both documented goals of OSM Carto
and verifiability rule are written to suggest some actions and guide
people, but not to rule out everything else. Which is good, because
there are many hard to verify objects (like country borders or highway
types) and other goals which are not explicitly written.


>> But on another topic, where does the idea of 'primary' and
>> 'secondary' tags I read here and there and more and more often comes
>> from? Are we making a map of the world in its complexity or what?
>> Yves
> Secondary tags refers to tags that have no distinct meaning on their 
> own.  Think of a feature that has an 'access=no' tag or


Only some of them. There are also secondary tags which are perfectly
clear and the only reason they are secondary is that documentation
requires using something else with them, for example:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:memorial


-- 
"Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]



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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Thursday 06 December 2018, Yves wrote:
> tourism=attraction can be added to a lot of features indeed, that's
> why I think the label rendering in OSM-carto is a good idea because
> you will probably never find a common rendering to encompass this
> variety.

Your desire for this is somewhat understandable - but this clashes with 
the current documented goals of OSM-Carto and the aim of OSM to map the 
verifiable geography and not subjective opinions.

> But on another topic, where does the idea of 'primary' and
> 'secondary' tags I read here and there and more and more often comes
> from? Are we making a map of the world in its complexity or what?
> Yves

Secondary tags refers to tags that have no distinct meaning on their 
own.  Think of a feature that has an 'access=no' tag or 
an 'intermittent=yes' tag and no other tags - these do not make any 
sense on their own, the only get meaning together with other tags (like 
a highway or waterway tag in these cases).

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Yves]

tourism=attraction can be added to a lot of features indeed, that's why I think 
the label rendering in OSM-carto is a good idea because you will probably never 
find a common rendering to encompass this variety.

But on another topic, where does the idea of 'primary' and 'secondary' tags I 
read here and there and more and more often comes from? Are we making a map of 
the world in its complexity or what?
Yves ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:55:11 +0900
Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:

> > do you mean, 1) it is impossible to invent a tag for it which better
> > describes its nature, or 2) that nobody has yet invented and
> > documented such a tag?
> >  
> 
> 1) is probably not possible
> 2) would be good
> I’m just not able to think of any examples.

Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair few bare
"tourism=attraction" objects.  How would you tag the following:

* Boiling River and Firehole Swimming Area, naturally-heated stretches
  of river that are popular for swimming.

* Petrified Tree, a large, petrified section of tree trunk.

* Soda Butte, the rock formation left behind by a long-extinct geyser.

* Norris Geyser Basin, Upper Geyser Basin, Artist Paint Pots, Fountain
  Paint Pots, and other named groups of thermal features.

* Roaring Mountain, a hillside that contains a large number of steam
  vents.

All of these are well-known, named places in the park, and any
reasonable park map needs to include them. Upper Geyser Basin in
particular is the main reason people come to the park (it's the one
that contains Old Faithful).

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 10:57, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> do you mean, 1) it is impossible to invent a tag for it which better
>> describes its nature, or 2) that nobody has yet invented and documented
>> such a tag?
>>
>
> 1) is probably not possible
> 2) would be good
> I’m just not able to think of any examples.
>

I have seen spots on the map that have only been tagged as
tourism=attraction, but every one I've looked at has been able to have an
extra tag added (which then also changes the rendered icon)

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 5. Dez. 2018 um 14:32 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> Does anyone have a specific example of a place that should be tagged
> tourism=attraction but which cannot also be tagged with another feature?



do you mean, it is impossible to invent a tag for it which better describes
its nature, or that nobody has yet invented and documented such a tag?

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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Does anyone have a specific example of a place that should be tagged
tourism=attraction but which cannot also be tagged with another feature?
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 9:55 PM Daniel Koć  wrote:

> W dniu 05.12.2018 o 11:40, Christoph Hormann pisze:
> > It would certainly be good to stop rendering it to incentivize mappers
> > to choose more meaningful tags instead but it also should be said that
> > this is essentially a case of 'damage done' - the tag is already
> > meaningless, stopping to render it would help better tagging in the
> > future, it would not in any way add meaning to the tag as it is already
> > used.
>
>
> While I agree with your description of attraction tag, I am not sure if
> this would help. If this is tagging for rendering, you can render more
> features, so cheating would not be needed (and we do it at OSM Carto),
> but stopping to render it might as well make people abuse other tags.
>
> People are not that simple, imposing something is not a sure way of
> reaching some goal, it can easily backfire.
>
>
> > We have however many other tags where OSM-Carto recently added or
> > changed rendering in ways that provide mapping incentives agaist the
> > established meaning of the tags.
>
>
> I'm not sure what are you talking about (most probably I just don't
> share your point of view), but I don't remember such cases.
>
>
> --
> "Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 05.12.2018 o 11:40, Christoph Hormann pisze:
> It would certainly be good to stop rendering it to incentivize mappers 
> to choose more meaningful tags instead but it also should be said that 
> this is essentially a case of 'damage done' - the tag is already 
> meaningless, stopping to render it would help better tagging in the 
> future, it would not in any way add meaning to the tag as it is already 
> used.


While I agree with your description of attraction tag, I am not sure if
this would help. If this is tagging for rendering, you can render more
features, so cheating would not be needed (and we do it at OSM Carto),
but stopping to render it might as well make people abuse other tags.

People are not that simple, imposing something is not a sure way of
reaching some goal, it can easily backfire.


> We have however many other tags where OSM-Carto recently added or 
> changed rendering in ways that provide mapping incentives agaist the 
> established meaning of the tags.


I'm not sure what are you talking about (most probably I just don't
share your point of view), but I don't remember such cases.


-- 
"Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]



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

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 05 December 2018, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> [...]
>
> This is reasonable; many features can be of interest to tourists, and
> tourism=attraction doesn't provide much information. Is it an area of
> shops? A beach? A theme park? A historic monument?
>
> However, there is a preset in the JOSM editor that allows
> tourism=attraction to be used as the top-level tag.
>
> Is it necessary to use tourism=attraction as the only tag for certain
> features?

Well - the main problem with tourism=attraction is that it has no 
consistent application hence no real meaning as a tag so you can't 
really say if it is a standalone tag or not.

What you can say is that:

* it is widely used as the only characterizing tag of a feature (usually 
just tourism=attraction + name).
* it is not a verifiable tag in either variant, the closest you could 
interpret it to mean is indicating some kind of wikipedia-like 
notability.
* it is often used as a 'lazy tag' - i.e. used by mappers who did not 
want to look for or to invent a more meaningful characterization.

> (Currently, tourism=attraction alone is rendered only as a name label
> on the Openstreetmap-carto style, without an border, area colour or
> icon. Either we need to add an icon or outline, or we can remove this
> from the list of rendered features. If the wiki is correct then it
> can be removed, because properly-tagged features should have another,
> more specific tag that can be rendered)


It would certainly be good to stop rendering it to incentivize mappers 
to choose more meaningful tags instead but it also should be said that 
this is essentially a case of 'damage done' - the tag is already 
meaningless, stopping to render it would help better tagging in the 
future, it would not in any way add meaning to the tag as it is already 
used.

We have however many other tags where OSM-Carto recently added or 
changed rendering in ways that provide mapping incentives agaist the 
established meaning of the tags.  This and the resulting dilution of 
existing value and precision in OSM data is going to be a much bigger 
problem.  

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

[Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The current wiki page for tourism=attraction states:

"A general tourist attraction. This tag may be added to object to
indicate that the place is interesting for tourists. Note that tagging
just tourism = attraction is not enough - this tag should be used only
as addition to main tag describing the feature."
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism=attraction

This is reasonable; many features can be of interest to tourists, and
tourism=attraction doesn't provide much information. Is it an area of
shops? A beach? A theme park? A historic monument?

However, there is a preset in the JOSM editor that allows
tourism=attraction to be used as the top-level tag.

Is it necessary to use tourism=attraction as the only tag for certain features?

(Currently, tourism=attraction alone is rendered only as a name label
on the Openstreetmap-carto style, without an border, area colour or
icon. Either we need to add an icon or outline, or we can remove this
from the list of rendered features. If the wiki is correct then it can
be removed, because properly-tagged features should have another, more
specific tag that can be rendered)

-Joseph

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