[Tagging] leisure=swimming_pool for the pool or the complex?
chaoschaos0909 at googlemail.com
Tue Jul 23 08:29:50 UTC 2013
I used to tag the area as leisure=water_park and the pools within as
leisure=swimming_pool (with sport = swimming for those that are deep and
long enough for competitive swimming).
Usually there are other things withing the area like leisure=playground or
I found no suitable tag to represent the grass area that is usually used to
lay down around the pool, sun-bath, play or make a small picnic. Neither
landcover nor landuse seem to fit.
2013/7/23 Gerhard Hermanns <gerhard.hermanns at uni-due.de>
> I don't agree with the use of the "landuse"-key.
> Landuse should be used for larger areas where you need a (generic) term
> for a conglomerate of objects (like "landuse=residential" for an area with
> houses, garages, gardens, streets - each of which can also be mapped
> seperately), but not for single objects like a pool.
> Am 23.07.2013 05:23, schrieb John F. Eldredge:
> I am saying that the land_use tag makes sense for in-ground pools, since
> they greatly reduce the odds of the land subsequently being used for some
> other purpose.
> In that case it would also be valid to use "landuse=building" or something
> like that because the same argument holds here. I don't think that the
> landuse-key should be used in such way. In short, I'm a bit concerned about
> the increasing use of the landuse-key for everything that covers a
> relatively small space, since the key is intended for large areas.
> Yes, I know such reuse does happen on rare occasions; the city of
> Nashville, TN, closed all of its public pools in the 1960's rather than
> obey a court order to integrate them, and turned at least one of the pools
> into a sunken garden.
> Bryce Nesbitt <bryce2 at obviously.com> <bryce2 at obviously.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John F. Eldredge <john at jfeldredge.com>wrote:
>>> You state "The pool after all is a man-made object that just sits on the
>>> ground". Some pools sit on the surface of the ground, and so could
>>> potentially be moved from one location to another. Others are built into an
>>> excavation, and can't be moved without demolishing them. They are a
>>> permanent change to the landscape, unless you fill them in.
>> Surely you don't mean to suggest we need to map a distinction between
>> movable and unmovable pools?
>> Last week I watched a building getting moved.
>> As a kid my parents went to the low rent ski area. The lift poles were
>> different colors, sometimes two or three to a pole. The lift
>> had been assembled from the parts of other lifts decommissioned at other
>> Everything in the "man_made" category can be
>> moved, including at unsustainable cost, the in-ground pools.
>> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not
> to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging