I get what you're saying, but I think fire_site would be too generic. What about using fire_ring instead? Whether it's dug into the ground or not, made of metal or stone, etc, these are usually circular.
On the other hand, leisure=firepit has over 800 uses, while fire_site and fire_ring have zero. Rather than introducing other tags, would it be better to just better define and document what firepit should be used for? On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com > wrote: > > 2014-06-23 16:22 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser <brad.neuhau...@gmail.com>: > > I would agree with Martin and disagree with John there. I guess I have a >> broader definition of fire pit/ring as something that exists mainly to >> contain a fire on the ground, and which may or may not be used for cooking. > > > > what about "fire_site", would that be a suitable neutral / structure > independent term which could avoid misinterpretation? Or is this too > generic and won't imply any kind of dedicated structure (i.e. it would say > that there is a spot where a fire had been / could be lit, but it won't say > that the place is suitable to do so)? I somehow do agree with John that > literally a fire pit should be "dug into the ground". > > 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