On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 12:43, Vɑdɪm <vadp.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think you guys forgot one thing: the OSM is not specifically about UK, > Australia or any other country. It's a global map. >
I didn't forget that. I'm pretty sure some of the others didn't forget that either. > > In your region you may perhaps you may not have any dedicated areas for > sunbathing, so -- don't use the tag. On the other hand I could imagine > there > are some countries you could be jailed if you'd try to sunbathe in the > fields. You may also find something in the middle. > It's the bit in the middle that is the problem. You seem determined to write a proposal that suggests it is OK to map unverifiable sunbathing areas. I, for one, will vote against a proposal which encourages mapping unverifiable sunbathing areas. > > Here and then I've found some areas designated for sunbathing, and I wanted > to map it accordingly. > Great. Write your proposal around those designated areas. Put photos of the signage in the proposal, if you have them. I'm happy to believe there are places with signs saying sunbathing is prohibited whether you have examples or not, because I've read reports of such areas where tourists were penalized for sunbathing in areas where it was prohibited. > > Tag:leisure=fishing simply says "Place for fishing", that's it literally. > So > probably you use your *personal assumptions* if using this tag which could > not be obvious for the others. > My personal assumption is that something must be verifiable to be mappable. I'm more flexible than some here. Some would insist on signage on the ground, I'd accept regulations on an official website or the statement of a property owner, or the statement of a club which has fishing rights to a stretch of river. What I would not do is notice a pond in the UK with some fish in it and assume that fishing is permitted. Other countries may have other rules, but unless I were sure of those rules I wouldn't map a pond with fish in it as leisure=fishing unless I could find evidence that were the case. It's not enough to see somebody fishing there as it may be the owner of the pond and the owner is the only one permitted to fish there. But if you stick to the dedicated areas (which the leisure=fishing currently > does not require) it becomes much easier to verify it. That's what I'm > using > in the proposal. > The wiki page for leisure=fishing doesn't require verifiability because that is an underlying assumption of OSM. Nor does it say "map ponds with fish in them as leisure=fishing" because that would be as bad as "if you see sunshades that's a sunbathing area." > > leisure=swimming_area as per the wiki a signage is not required, buoys, > etc. > are optional. It just needs to be an "officially designated place". > Yes. Officially designated. Verifiable. Not "there's some water so you can swim in it" or even "I once saw somebody swimming there." amenity=lounger -- could be a movable and seasonal object. > Could be. But in a public area probably relatively stable for long periods of time. Still a physical object, though, and intrinsically verifiable. We don't put amenity=lounger on an area where somebody might one day put a lounger. leisure=outdoor_seating in some countries could be just a part of a street > in a good weather. > Could be. Mappers ought to have some idea of local conventions and not make assumptions. However, outdoor seats are physical objects. Many countries have laws about putting seats on sidewalks. I'm confident that the outdoor seating I've mapped is stable in the long-term because I've observed it over a period of years, and that it will be there as long as the operator remains in business. Tag:leisure=dance could be not only dance halls, but also "other venues > which offer social dancing or participation dancing". Again a signage is > not > required. > How do you know those venues offer social or participation dancing without signage or the operator's website saying so? Again, it comes down to verifiability. I mentioned only signage because by that stage I thought I'd made my point about VERIFIABILITY. I hadn't realized I was dealing with somebody who couldn't understand VERIFIABILITY. Your proposal doesn't have to explicitly mention verifiability because that is an underlying principle of OSM. But if it encourages guesswork then I will vote against it, and I expect some others will too. Your choice. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging