[Tagging] ?=maze

johnw johnw at mac.com
Thu Feb 19 09:48:33 UTC 2015

I think it should be k kept under attraction, because a large mappable maze is certainly an interest of tourists - especially if it is part of a larger complex. 

Then it would be 


or attraction:maze=hedge  instead of attraction=maze + maze=hedge  (so a generic maze would be attraction:maze=yes) I actually like this better. 

I don’t know which is better, but it certainly feels that any large maze - new or historic - is a form of attraction, so it should go into that - Especially if we are going to have a definition for special gardens in there as well.  

I think we can just label it historic or heritage or something if it fits for the maze 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic>

> Other: wall, boundary_stone, well, boundary_marker, folly

is a maze a “folly”? I think it is. 




> On Feb 19, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/02/2015 8:15 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>> The problem with
>> tourism=attraction
>> attraction=maze
>> Is that attraction is a top level tag, not a subtag of tourism=attraction.
>> So maybe:
>> tourism=attraction
>> type=maze
>> subtypes=labyrinth;hedge
> I'd do
> tourism=maze  ... similar to zoo, theme park, museum, artwork.
> and if necessary sub tag under that .. there are lots of different types .. see wikipedia 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150219/9403d589/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list