<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Yes I agree with you that it makes no sense to map every place where
you could bathe. This was not the purpose behind the proposal. The
point is to mark places that have become informal bathing places in
the area. There is no sign here. But if you are outside on a nice
day you will most likely find someone bathing there. If such a place
is used almost every day (in the summer), it leaves traces. So if
you want to check such a place, when you get there on a nice day,
you will see people bathing there and probably see trails and other
traces. If the water is used for other things on the side, this is
not a problem. The important thing is that the place is perceived as
a bathing place by the local population. Even if this is not
official.<br>
<br>
Since there is no sign, the informel subtag is used. It describes
exactly that. A place or path that is not official but has emerged
as such. Paths through the forest that are marked with informel=yes
also have no signs and are usually not marked on official maps.
After your argumentation they would be also not be verifiable. But
if I am on the spot I can confirm the path as such. The same would
happen with informal bathing places.<br>
<br>
I have the feeling that I have explained this very badly in the
proposal and many think I want to map every beautiful potential
bathing place. Is this correct?<br>
<br>
In this Google Image:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.google.de/maps/@46.8471591,7.3364987,3a,75y,121.54h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMBfFKJ12aGmSkoafV_AZuuYVpaFIVJTshfG9ou!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMBfFKJ12aGmSkoafV_AZuuYVpaFIVJTshfG9ou%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya329.90637-ro-0-fo100!7i11264!8i5632">https://www.google.de/maps/@46.8471591,7.3364987,3a,75y,121.54h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMBfFKJ12aGmSkoafV_AZuuYVpaFIVJTshfG9ou!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMBfFKJ12aGmSkoafV_AZuuYVpaFIVJTshfG9ou%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya329.90637-ro-0-fo100!7i11264!8i5632</a>
. It is exactly such an informal bathing place that I would like to
map. Since the picture was taken very early in the day there are
unfortunately no people present. But you can see traces of the
people who use the place as an informal bathing place. You can see
paths and several fireplaces. At noon there are almost always
several people bathing there. Nevertheless, no sign is present and
the place is not official.<br>
<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, I had adjusted something in my mails, therefore I can
not answer the other question directly, so I do this here now. The
question was:<br>
I'll ask the same question that I asked previously - when you say
"bathing
place", are you talking about places where you bath (wash yourself),
or
bathe (swim)?<br>
<br>
<br>
Places meant by the proposal go from bigger lakes to smaller rivers
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.google.de/maps/@46.8471591,7.3364987,3a,75y,121.54h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMBfFKJ12aGmSkoafV_AZuuYVpaFIVJTshfG9ou!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMBfFKJ12aGmSkoafV_AZuuYVpaFIVJTshfG9ou%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya329.90637-ro-0-fo100!7i11264!8i5632">https://www.google.de/maps/@46.8471591,7.3364987,3a,75y,121.54h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMBfFKJ12aGmSkoafV_AZuuYVpaFIVJTshfG9ou!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMBfFKJ12aGmSkoafV_AZuuYVpaFIVJTshfG9ou%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya329.90637-ro-0-fo100!7i11264!8i5632</a>).
Swimming is not possible in such small rivers. However, you can
still relax and spend time in the water. That's why I added the
sport=swimming subtag. When this is added it is clear that you can
swim in the water. You can theoretically wash in all water sources
that are used for swimming. But this proposal is not about places
where you can wash yourself.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Gruebel<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/07/2021 15:01, Bert -Araali- Van
Opstal wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:86bd1cfa-8da9-e636-408b-a18dc22ce7a4@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p><font face="Verdana">I also ask the same question again , in
most poorer countries without proper piped water supplies ALL
waters are used to bath, bathe (swim), laundry, car wash,
fetching drinking and cooking water etc... . I do remember
that in most other countries in Europe the same applies,
people are free to access public waters unless signposted
otherwise, good idea or not. We don't need this tag.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">I stick with "</font>We don't map nature
baths without signage (it is not verifiable) other than the
surface, e.g. sand, rock and the paths/roads leading to it.
There must be a sign as a bare minimum to tag it using the tags
below." as in our wiki.<br>
If you feel the need to do otherwise you could attempt to change
this statement and use an additional amenity=public_bath or
nature_bath ? Doesn't seem good idea to me people go for nature
bathing to be private, not the ones commonly known, cliff diving
etc... all different interest groups and different intentions
using natural features. Compare it with other "sports" not
practised in a place modified by humans.<br>
</p>
<p>Greetings,</p>
<p>Bert Araali<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/07/2021 14:37, <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:gruebel2020@online.de" moz-do-not-send="true">gruebel2020@online.de</a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:47c3f2c0-6870-5bc4-37c7-afdc68228b3a@online.de">Voting
on "Reworking leisure=bathing place" has ended. It was rejected
with 9 votes against and 8 votes for (3 abstentions). <br>
<br>
A large part of the votes against the proposal is because of the
poor verifiability. In my opinion the places that are meant in
this proposal are clear and verifiable. I had tried to set up
many rules to make this clear for others. Apparently these were
not sufficient or poorly defined by me. <br>
<br>
I would revise the proposal in the future and propose it again.
I am wondering if you have any ideas to improve the
verifiability. <br>
Maybe you have other images that could act as examples. I know
several places, but unfortunately I have hardly taken any
pictures of them so far. <br>
<br>
I am still convinced that these locations have sufficient
frequency and relevance to continue working on them. <br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
Tagging mailing list <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>