[Tagging] leisure=events

Antônio Marcos toni.oliv at gmail.com
Mon Mar 10 17:02:57 UTC 2014

Thanks for the support so far,

I think the leisure key doesn't fit good in the case, the event-destinated
area is not a place where people generally go during the year in their
spare time when there is no events, so it is a pretty specific land used
and reserved for events. Also, the leisure tag would conflict with other
leisures inside the event area (pitches, dance halls, stadiums, tracks,
etc.) or even with the area the used land is in, for instance a park, which
is the example I've given before, of an area inside a park where I live (
http://binged.it/19kxgU2, the circus/event area is part of a park). So, I
think landuse best describes it. I know the conflict the landuse key may
cause with meadows or parking lots, but it is "mainly used for describe the
primary use of land by humans", by its definition at its wiki page; If it's
primarily not used for events, it is not properly an event area. Any place
can receive events, but not all of them are designated for it. As for
recreational grounds, I think what I said here applies to, as its use is
not for necessarily for events.
Event lands are therefore really designated for that, even though it may be
just a ground area (then we can tag landuse=events +
surface/landcover/natural). For the value "events", it does describe a
dedicated place: used for events; It is a general but also specific tag :).
If the event comes to be necessary for its mapping, then we could create,
as I said before, some tag like "event_type" with values ranging from corn
festivals to world's fairs. "Event_space/place" would come redundant with
the key landuse.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2014-03-10 12:48 GMT+01:00 johnw <johnw at mac.com>:
> otherwise we would have no need for building=civic / public.
> IMHO we do indeed have no need for building=public / civic. Both can be
> considered vague building types, but on a very generic level, I'd encourage
> everyone to use more specific building tags. It is also not clear from
> building=public what exactly this indicates (publicly owned and used by a
> public entity but not generally accessible, publicly owned and open to the
> general public, privately owned but publicly operated and publicly
> accessible or even not, publicly owned and privately used). Generally I
> would not deduct any kind of ownership from the building type, and neither
> from the landuse, and not even from access-tags ;-)
> If we were to tag ownership (problematic, might have privacy implications,
> could be hard to verify with publicly accessible sources) a dedicated new
> tag should be used, e.g. proprietor, owner, property_of or similar.
> cheers,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140310/93a32565/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list