[Tagging] Tagging natural or informal swimming holes?

Bryce Nesbitt bryce2 at obviously.com
Sat Apr 26 04:56:21 UTC 2014


On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk> wrote:

> Forgetting the tagging for a moment, is it not irresponsible to be
> mapping and thus being seen as encouraging such activities?
>
> Every year when there is hot weather there are warnings not to swim in
> lakes and rivers, and these are inevitably followed by reports in the
> media of a tragic loss of life.
>
> The last thing OSM needs is to be seen as contributing to such
> tragedies.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>

Quite the contrary: natural area swimming is fully legal and expected in
many areas, even in the lawsuit happy USA.  There are plenty of places
where's it's documented in the materials provided by the landholder and
touted as an amenity.

If swimming is common but prohibited, the access tag should do just fine:
public, permissive, no/prohibited, etc.
Especially if documented (e.g. Prohibited by BMC Code 12323), I see such a
listing as a service to the public.

---
The tricky part is when is an natural area "notable" enough to map?

For example: Rainbow Pool near Yosemite clearly counts:
http://mercedcountyevents.com/rainbow-pool/
It's got restrooms, parking, a stream gauge, and hundreds of people on peak
days.
No lifeguard.  No facilities.  People dive all day off a 15 foot rock, and
dare each other to slip behind the falls.
Clearly this is a "notable" swimming area that's not a pool.

But just downstream is another pool that's swimmable but rarely visited.  I
would not list the second one.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140425/d9f5c953/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list