[Tagging] tagging cycleable city-models focused on simulating road network

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 4:01 PM, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I really dislike amenity=training as it is hopelessly broad. It would
> include everything from feature discussed here to training center for
> astronauts.
>

I thought it to be very specifically focused.  And yes, a training centre
for astronauts would be entirely appropriate
(but there aren't many of them). amenity=training + training=astronaut
seems very precise to me.  As does
amenity=training + training = cycling.  And amenity=training +
training=dance.   And amenity=training +
training=equestrian.  Better than squeezing them all under leisure or
education, which are already hopelessly
broad.

I really dislike leisure=* for it, as somebody suggested.  It's not a
leisure activity.  "What shall we do this weekend?
The park?  The cinema?  Play football?  No, let's learn to cycle.  Again."
It really doesn't fit leisure.  You might revisit
a leisure facility many times but you only learn to cycle once.

It could come under education, but that's a bit square peg/round hole.

To my mind, training involves motor skills/muscle memory to a significant
degree.  There may be some
memory/cognition skills involved (when you learn to ride a bike you need to
understand your local highway
rules) but a large part of it is learning not to fall off the bike.

Yes, there are grey areas.  There always are.  You live with that and
choose either training or education as
seems most appropriate.

Unlike the abandoned proposal, I don't think a driving school counts, not
when it's just a fancy name for
the office where the instructor does paperwork.  Not even if it has a
classroom where they teach highway rules
(that's education, not training).  But if it had a room with a full
simulator in it (mock-up of a car with controls and
virtual reality display) then that would count as a training.facility.


> In changeset discussion amenity=traffic_park was proposed, that I like but
> I suspect that it is a neologism.
>

Not just a neologism, but a confusing one.  Sounds like a posh car park to
me.  With the emphasis on the
traffic (whatever it is) being parked.  Which doesn't fit the cycle
training situation.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180422/46a01dc5/attachment-0001.html>