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

osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au
Mon Apr 23 12:06:04 UTC 2018

In addition to training=cycling we should probably also support training:cycling=yes as a single place might offer training in more than one field.


From: Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, 23 April 2018 21:04
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging cycleable city-models focused on simulating road network



On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com> > wrote:


I would prefer a long descriptive term (like: "cycling_training_area") over a nice artificial word like "bicycle_town" which creates more questions than it answers.


I agree completely about needing a descriptive term.  From the wikipedia page mentioned earlier in the thread it's clear
that different countries have different names for it and none of those names are self-explanatory.  Terms that are

self-explanatory mean that people using an editor can look through a list of possible values and it's obvious which

one to use without having to resort to the OSM wiki.

I'd prefer something more structured than duck tagging a crowded amenity tag, simply because we're likely to
encounter more types of training as time goes by.  amenity=training + training=cycling works for me.  Well,

for something private like a room with expensive flight simulators used by airlines then I'd say it's more of

a facility than an amenity (you can't just walk in, hand over some money and have a play) but access=private

lets us use amenity anyway (even for NASA's astronaut training facilities).



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180423/90de169b/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list