[Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia
silentspike100 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 1 02:23:05 UTC 2019
I've recently been more involved with wikidata and come to appreciate the
benefits of having a structured set of data interlinked by well defined
properties. You can see here <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q216212> that
the current information there considers motels to be a subclass of hotels
(so all motels are hotels, not all hotels are motels). Which makes sense to
me, hotels are the short term accommodation part of your definition and
then this can be further specified as a motel if it's build around a car
parking area as the main attraction of the hotel.
In terms of the splitting hairs and tagging conversation, this seems to
support the tourism=accommodation idea mentioned, but yeah existing tags
are so widely used already...
On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 9:57 PM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am getting the same feeling for intermittent/seasonal and ephemeral ...
> should all be one top level tag. Sigh.
> n 01/01/19 02:37, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> Tobias wrote:
> "Now that several comments here indicate that the only practical
> distinction today is the name on the front sign I come to think that we
> could abandon the tag altogether."
> I agree. We tend to "split hairs" in OSM, when in some cases it simply
> isn't worth the effort. These objects are just temporary accommodations
> that, granted, have varying characteristics. Here in Thailand, it's
> virtually impossible to differentiate between a guest_house and a hotel.
> And how should one tag facilities that label themselves as a "resort"
> (รีสอร์ท)? A better approach might (have been) to use a generic term like
> tourism=accommodation as a top level and then describe the facility more
> fully with subtags. Of course, we're pretty much stuck with the present
> imperfect tagging situation.
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 10:18 PM Tobias Wrede <list at tobias-wrede.de>
>> In Germany my experience is that actually most hotels in the cities
>> charge for parking. On the other hand you find very very few that call
>> themselves "motel". I can only think of one currently that does, and it is
>> located within a motorway rest area. The exception is the chain Motel One
>> which is a very typical _h_otel often located in city centers offering only
>> limited parking.
>> When I think of a motel I always picture those with doors opening to the
>> car park from US movies. Now that several comments here indicate that the
>> only practical distinction today is the name on the front sign I come to
>> think that we could abandon the tag altogether. What value does it generate
>> for the data consumer if tourism=motel and tourism=hotel is all but the
>> same and practical distinction could for both be made by subtags
>> parking=y/n, parking:fee=y/n, etc?
>> Am 24.12.2018 um 01:12 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
>> In the USA, we would also assume a motel offers free parking. Hotels may
>> charge extra for parking, especial if located downtown or next to an
>> Is this also the case in Europe and Australia?
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 8:55 AM Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com>
>>> "Today the main difference seems to be the sign out front. If a
>>> hostelry calls itself a motel, it is a motel. If it calls itself a hotel,
>>> it is a hotel. Local licensing authorities do not differentiate between
>>> them and they are regulated identically, so far as I can tell. I'd say the
>>> definition should be based on what is written on the sign on the hostelry."
>>> That's my main criterion for tagging an accommodation as a motel. I
>>> agree with Volker's points and Allan's view on this.
>>> Happy Holidays
>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:27 AM Allan Mustard <allan at mustard.net> wrote:
>>>> Motel = MOtor hoTEL
>>>> The major difference between a 'hotel" and a "motel" originally was the
>>>> configuration of the building with respect to parking. At a traditionally
>>>> designed motel, the cars are parked outside the units, which typically open
>>>> to the outdoors, not to a hallway, so that patrons of the motel may come
>>>> and go freely to their automobiles. Length of stay is immaterial.
>>>> The first motels appeared on the Lincoln Highway in the 1920s, if
>>>> memory serves, and had little carports capable of accommodating a Model T
>>>> Ford-sized automobile next to a cabin (yes, the first motels featured
>>>> cabins, not rooms in a larger building).
>>>> Then along came Motel 6, so called because it charged $6 per night back
>>>> in the day (it featured coin-operated TVs and you paid extra for everything
>>>> but the bed, bath, and four walls). Many Motel 6s had hallways, and that
>>>> changed the design, but they still catered to transients en route from
>>>> Point A to Point B.
>>>> Today the main difference seems to be the sign out front. If a
>>>> hostelry calls itself a motel, it is a motel. If it calls itself a hotel,
>>>> it is a hotel. Local licensing authorities do not differentiate between
>>>> them and they are regulated identically, so far as I can tell. I'd say the
>>>> definition should be based on what is written on the sign on the hostelry.
>>>> These are my two cents' worth based on 30+ years of travel, including a few
>>>> cross-country trips across America as well as extensive on-ground travel in
>>>> Mexico, Russia, and central Europe.
>>>> Cheers and Merry Christmas to all!
>>>> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 4:33 AM bkil <bkil.hu+Aq at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I've made a major rewording of this tag. Please review and don't
>>>>> hesitate to comment or improve if I've mistakenly changed the meaning of
>>>>> the tag:
>>>>> Source: based on Wikipedia and recent mapping experience:
>>>>> It also looks like some have used the word motel for what should have
>>>>> been pensions and guest houses around here, I'll also fix these later.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging