[Tagging] sleepable:physical=yes/no? Re: How to map Hostile Architecture? e.g. benches you can't lie/sleep on?

[Rory McCann]

Hi all,

On 28/02/2019 11:12, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
 > sleepable=yes/no is for me problematic as it can be easily confused
 > with "is it OK to sleep there".

A good point. Some tags refer to legal access (foot/bicycle), some are 
more about physical (e.g. wheelchair, track_type). We did just have a 
issue with StreetComplete & foot=yes/no tags!

What about `sleepable:physical=yes/no`? It's clear that it's about "can 
you *physically* sleep on this bench".

On 28/02/2019 11:12, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
 > For example tag presence of additional armrest in the middle and
 > width ...
 >   - armrest_count=3 (there is one in the middle)
 >   - depth=XYZ (as bench is made so one would fall from it on attempt
 > to lie there)

Here's a famous one which doesn't use armrests: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden_bench Here's one which has 2 arm 
rests, but not at the ends ( https://imgur.com/a/bVcxeRS ). Tagging 
armrests might be interesting, but it doesn't answer the question of 
"can someone physically sleep here (and has it been modified/designed to 
prevent that)".

Tagging "depth" is certainly OK, but it's hard to measure. I can walk 
past a bench and see if one can physically lie there, but I can't know 
the depth unless I get a measuring tape.


On 28/02/2019 09:24, Warin wrote:
> I'd describe it as friendly to sitters.

On 28/02/2019 10:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> To sum it up, I would tend to prefer "objective" criteria

On 28/02/2019 11:12, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> I second reddit suggestion to use objective criteria.

On 28/02/2019 11:44, OSMDoudou wrote:
> From OSM perspective, we describe how the things are, not so much 
> how they feel and what are the intentions.

Perhaps I was unclear, 🙂 I 100% support objective, clear
definitions (and tags). Hence why I gave a (I think) objective
definition/categorisation rule, and suggested many objective, 
value-neutral tags. I used "hostile architecture" because the term is 
used elsewhere.

Here I'm just asking about benches. Because it's easier, they're common 
and we already map benches.

On 28/02/2019 10:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Or what about benches that are so short you cannot sleep on? These may
> be designed purposefully against people sleeping on them, but is being
> "long enough to sleep" a general requirement for benches?

I want to know how to map (what is called) "hostile architecture", so 
"long enough to sleep on" is a useful rule here.

On 28/02/2019 10:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> there may be better solutions with regard to people who have no
> place to sleep than benches.

Unfortunately, radical changes to the global economic system to prevent 
homelessness is outside the scope of the tagging mailing list.