[Tagging] (no subject)

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Dec 5 12:36:12 GMT 2011


2011/12/5 Jo <winfixit at gmail.com>:
> Toerisme Vlaanderen wants to share its databases with us. There are
> accomodations like hotels, but also many others. I'm going to start by
> treating the hotels.
>
> Here are 2 examples, which I entered from a combination of their
> information, bing, personal knowledge and contacting them by phone:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/109571527
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/139842631
>
> The question is, of course: are those tags OK, or should I use a different
> scheme alltogether.


I have some questions and suggestions regarding the tagging:

1) stars=4  What system does this refer to? Is this according to
Hotelstars Union? If I see this right, Belgium isn't part of this
union.

2) I suggest to not use the prefix "hotel" because it isn't clear
which part of the hotel this refers to (lobby, restaurants, rooms) In
the case of a luxury hotel this might be clear, but for a universally
usable classification system there should be a differentiation (I am
refering e.g. to airconditioning, balcony, garden).

3) similar to 2) some of the attributes are not really hotel-specific
(airconditioning, pets_allowed, and maybe also stuff like
tennis_court, sauna, fitness) and shouldn't be prefixed "hotel:" IMHO

4) hotel booking link is a reference to a closed database:
hotel:directBookingLink =
https://www.securereservations.eu/select_dates.aspx?tvID=196222&taal=UK

5) hotel:jacuzzi = no is containing a trademark (jacuzzi) and is not
the general term (whirlpool)

6) some keys are highly detailed (extra baby bed fee, room prizes and
similar) and might not be suitable for OSM (think about maintenance of
this data) or apply only to subsets of the hotel (balcony for
instance)

7) Instead of "hotel:garden = yes" it might be more usefull to
actually draw the garden (leisure=garden, garden:style=,
garden:type=hotel or similar)

8) Some tags seem ambiguous (internet_access = yes,
internet_access:fee = no): does this mean that access is free for
guests or is it free for everyone (IMHO your tags state the latter)

9) I'd add a brand (e.g. brand=Courtyard By Marriott) if applying

10) There seems to be a typo in both hotels you gave as example (hoteL:balcony)

11) Why are there capital letters in some keys?
"hotel:AccessibilityWebsite", "rooms:BathShowerToilet ",
"ref:ToerismeVlaanderen"

12) Does "ToerismeVlaanderen" only share with "us", or is this an open
database (ref:ToerismeVlaanderen), see 4.

13) "wheelchair = yes;1 wheelchair available on site" would IMHO be
better split up into 2 keys "wheelchair = yes" and e.g.
"note:wheelchair=1 wheelchair available on site" because the latter is
a note and does not follow the logics of the established key
"wheelchair"

14) "hotel:parking = yes" is really poor information (how many parking
lots do they offer, what does it cost, where is it/accessibility).
You'd better map the parking details in the OSM-standard way

15) You used the tag "photo" but the established key is "image"

16) Does "smoking=no" mean that you cannot smoke at any time and any
place inside the hotel (there is no smoking room at all)?


> When a hotel claims to have a swimming pool, but then the swimming pool is a
> public one nearby, I marked it like this: hotel:swimming_pool = yes;Triton.


IMHO that doesn't merit any tag at all. The tags you used are IMHO not
understandable (because I don't know what "Triton" is). If there is a
swimming pool close, map the swimming pool, don't tag the nearby
hotels with this information (it is already spatially there).


> I did the same for the parking facilities of the hotel in Leuven:
> hotel:parking = yes;Ladeuze


you should include the parking polygon/node in the hotel polygon, so
this tag is not needed (IMHO)


> As far as the swimming pool goes, I could also simply have added no and let
> the users use the map to locate the pool on their own, of course.


+1


> In the case of the parking, the hotel in Leuven does have an agreement with
> Ladeuze parking and they offer their customers a rebate, so the connection
> is a little bit stronger there.


OK, maybe this could be expressed with a site-relation? This is really
a detail (probably interesting) for which there is no generally
established way up to now to deal with.


> What is missing at the moment, is a deep link to the website of Toerisme
> Vlaanderen, where interested people can consult all the information as well.
> When I have those, should I use
> website:ToerismeVlaanderen=
> for that?


You shouldn't use 2 tags for the same (you already include their ID in
ref:ToerismeVlaanderen = 196222 ), so one would be redundant

cheers,
Martin



More information about the Tagging mailing list