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

Rory McCann rory at technomancy.org
Fri Dec 7 13:22:35 UTC 2018


On 06/12/2018 20:49, Mark Wagner wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100 Rory McCann <rory at technomancy.org> wrote:
>> natural=tree? natural=petrified_tree ?
> 
> "Tree" is misleading.  "natural=petrified_tree" would be good, except
> it gets zero hits in TagInfo.

Nothing wrong with being the first use of a tag.

>>> * 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.

I don't think so. There are 1.2M+ place=localities in OSM, most just
with a name. A bare "tourism=attraction" is hard to interpret. Is it a
sign? A plaque? A building? "place=locality" says "this whole little
area is the attraction". Which is much more information




More information about the Tagging mailing list