I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it to be shown, and OSM should probably not be encouraging people (in any way) to be visiting sites that are clearly marked as illegal to visit. This seems like a bad precedent to set. I would include the bunker but not mark it as tourism. People will find it if they want to, whatever OSM tags it as, so it doesn't seem necessary to participate/encourage in whatever degree of illegality the access entails.
-- Brian On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 7:55 PM stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > Joseph asks good, relevant questions regarding whether the access tag > should be private vs. no. But, yes, I agree Frederik, there absolutely > should be one of these two tags with that sign you displayed. (I've seen > it many times driving past here before the tunnel was built, it's a bit > more out-of-the-way now). And if it was historically a bunker, OSM should > strive to tag this, I'm not exactly sure of the right mix of > military=bunker and historic=yes flavors that might be absolutely correct, > but something like those if not exactly those. Though historic=ruins seems > correct, too, so perhaps better than "yes." > > I slightly disagree with Frederik about a viewpoint necessarily being > signposted or "called a viewpoint." I've tagged tourism=viewpoint on many > such places, where they are absolutely a viewpoint in my opinion (and I've > hiked a LOT) but are neither so noted via signpost on site, nor on a map. > Many that I have so entered into OSM have a bench nearby (and so I'll tag > amenity=bench on a node, too) so I'm not the only one who thinks the spot > has a nice view worthy of a short sit and "take it all in." I mean, hiking > trails and viewpoints go together like peas and carrots, otherwise, what's > the point? (Exercise, sure — but, but the VIEWS!) What I'm saying is that > I believe it's OK for an OSM mapper who enters a tourism=viewpoint tag to > say "I'm asserting this to be a bona fide viewpoint here." Of course, if > it is signed, benched or otherwise mapped or widely acknowledged as a > viewpoint, all the better. > > I tire of self-declared "concerned citizens" who think they should tell us > mappers what is in the world and how to tag it. What must be immediately > dispensed with is that "maps make people do things." (Hike closed trails, > trespass...) Nonsense: maps show the world as it is (to the extent they > can). PEOPLE do things with maps. When you start there, all the right > things to do follow. Let's get an access tag here, tune up "historic" and > let the renderers do their magic. (As usual, but it's a good question, > thank you for that familiar sign and I'm glad there is such lively > participation in suggestions). > > SteveA > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
