[Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

6. Dec 2018 20:49 by mark+osm at carnildo.com <mailto:mark+osm at carnildo.com>:


> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100
> Rory McCann <> rory at technomancy.org <mailto:rory at technomancy.org>> > wrote:
>
>> On 06/12/2018 08:38, Mark Wagner wrote:
>> > Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair few bare
>>  
>> > * Petrified Tree, a large, petrified section of tree trunk.  
>>
>> natural=tree? natural=petrified_tree ?
>
> "Tree" is misleading.  "natural=petrified_tree" would be good, except
> it gets zero hits in TagInfo.
>




It is perfectly fine to use tag fo the first time. Happens fairly often to me 


during cleanup of bare tourism=attraction. 





>> > * Norris Geyser Basin, Upper Geyser Basin, Artist Paint Pots,
>> > Fountain Paint Pots, and other named groups of thermal features.  
>>
>> natural=geyser ?
>
> "natural=geyser" is already in use for geysers.  Applying it to entire
> geyser basins would be like using the same tag for both single trees
> and forests.  (It would also be inaccurate, since these basins usually
> contain a mix of geysers, fumaroles, hot springs, and occasionally mud
> pots.)

natural=geyser_basin? 



>> > * Roaring Mountain, a hillside that contains a large number of steam
>> >    vents.  
>>
>> place=locality ? natural=peak ? natural=hill ?
>
> "locality" might work, but it's even more generic than "tourist
> attraction".  "Peak" or "hill" don't work -- the summit is almost a mile
> to the southwest of the actual point of interest.
>

natural=geothermal_area (????) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181206/f129e055/attachment.html>