[Tagging] Historic huts

Erik Johansson erjohan at gmail.com
Fri Mar 29 08:37:02 UTC 2013


On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Andreas Labres <list at lab.at> wrote:
> On 28.03.13 11:18, Erik Johansson wrote:
>> This sounds more like an tourism attraction than a hut though
>
> If it is a tourism attraction tag it as tourism=attraction (that's what I said).
>
> But don't tag it for this reason: "to increase the chance that the historic=*
> actually renders as something...".


We all know "don't tag for the renderer" mantra, repeating it is
pointless. I'm pointing out that this is neither objectively an
attraction nor a shelter, and also it is in the intersection between
macro and micromapping..

Sure you can micro map it, but it's really too much work to tag it like this:
node:
building=hut
tourism=attraction
name="Smith Hut (ruins)"
note="historic feature built blablabla see more about smith huts"

node:
tourism=camp_site
backcountry=yes
impromptu=yes


So you are probably going to end up with a one node solution, one
could also call it

disused:amenity=shelter
shelter_type=wather_shelter
tourism=attraction
name="Smith hut (ruins)"
note="historic feature built blablabla see more about smith huts"

My view is that many tags in OSM are either too specific or too
general, alpine_hut/tucan crossing/pelican crossing/basc_shelter are
to specific and tourism=attraction might be too general. Going after
Steves description I'm not sure I would like to discover this when I
went to find a hut.


Increased chance to render is a great reason to tag something.

/Erik



More information about the Tagging mailing list