<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 12:43, Vɑdɪm <<a href="mailto:vadp.devl@gmail.com">vadp.devl@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I think you guys forgot one thing: the OSM is not specifically about UK,<br>
Australia or any other country. It's a global map.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I didn't forget that. I'm pretty sure some of the others didn't forget that either. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
In your region you may perhaps you may not have any dedicated areas for<br>
sunbathing, so -- don't use the tag. On the other hand I could imagine there<br>
are some countries you could be jailed if you'd try to sunbathe in the<br>
fields. You may also find something in the middle.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's the bit in the middle that is the problem. You seem determined to write a</div><div> proposal that suggests it is OK to map unverifiable sunbathing areas. I, for one,</div><div> will vote against a proposal which encourages mapping unverifiable sunbathing</div><div> areas.<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Here and then I've found some areas designated for sunbathing, and I wanted<br>
to map it accordingly.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Great. Write your proposal around those designated areas. Put photos of the signage</div><div>in the proposal, if you have them. I'm happy to believe there are places with signs</div><div>saying sunbathing is prohibited whether you have examples or not, because I've read</div><div>reports of such areas where tourists were penalized for sunbathing in areas where</div><div>it was prohibited.<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Tag:leisure=fishing simply says "Place for fishing", that's it literally. So<br>
probably you use your *personal assumptions* if using this tag which could<br>
not be obvious for the others.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>My personal assumption is that something must be verifiable to be mappable. I'm more</div><div>flexible than some here. Some would insist on signage on the ground, I'd accept regulations</div><div>on an official website or the statement of a property owner, or the statement of a club which</div><div>has fishing rights to a stretch of river. What I would not do is notice a pond in the UK with</div><div> some fish in it and assume that fishing is permitted. Other countries may have other rules,</div><div>but unless I were sure of those rules I wouldn't map a pond with fish in it as leisure=fishing</div><div> unless I could find evidence that were the case. It's not enough to see somebody fishing</div><div>there as it may be the owner of the pond and the owner is the only one permitted to fish there.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
But if you stick to the dedicated areas (which the leisure=fishing currently<br>
does not require) it becomes much easier to verify it. That's what I'm using<br>
in the proposal.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The wiki page for leisure=fishing doesn't require verifiability because that is an underlying</div><div> assumption of OSM. Nor does it say "map ponds with fish in them as leisure=fishing"</div><div> because that would be as bad as "if you see sunshades that's a sunbathing area."<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
leisure=swimming_area as per the wiki a signage is not required, buoys, etc.<br>
are optional. It just needs to be an "officially designated place".<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. Officially designated. Verifiable. Not "there's some water so you can swim in it" or even</div><div>"I once saw somebody swimming there."</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
amenity=lounger -- could be a movable and seasonal object.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Could be. But in a public area probably relatively stable for long periods of time. Still</div><div>a physical object, though, and intrinsically verifiable. We don't put amenity=lounger on</div><div>an area where somebody might one day put a lounger.<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
leisure=outdoor_seating in some countries could be just a part of a street<br>
in a good weather.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Could be. Mappers ought to have some idea of local conventions and not make assumptions.</div><div>However, outdoor seats are physical objects. Many countries have laws about putting seats</div><div>on sidewalks. I'm confident that the outdoor seating I've mapped is stable in the long-term</div><div>because I've observed it over a period of years, and that it will be there as long as the operator</div><div> remains in business.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Tag:leisure=dance could be not only dance halls, but also "other venues<br>
which offer social dancing or participation dancing". Again a signage is not<br>
required.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>How do you know those venues offer social or participation dancing without signage or</div><div>the operator's website saying so? Again, it comes down to verifiability. I mentioned only</div><div>signage because by that stage I thought I'd made my point about VERIFIABILITY. I hadn't</div><div>realized I was dealing with somebody who couldn't understand VERIFIABILITY.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Your proposal doesn't have to explicitly mention verifiability because that is an underlying</div><div>principle of OSM. But if it encourages guesswork then I will vote against it, and I expect</div><div>some others will too. Your choice.</div><div><br></div><div>-- <br></div><div>Paul</div><div><br></div></div></div>