[Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia
LeTopographeFou
letopographefou at gmail.com
Tue Jan 1 13:50:29 UTC 2019
I also reached this conclusion some time ago but looking at how it is
difficult to change something regarding tagging I stop authorizing
myself thinking that such situation CAN be changed. However I'm not
affraid of such major change if it can bring enhancement. I'm ok to
consider a proposal which would lead to the tourism=accomodation schema.
But I think that whatever we do (new schema vs existing schema) an
"Accomodation" wiki page (routing to hotel/motel/... tags) will be
helpfull to today route to existing tags and maybe tomorrow explain the
new schema.
Yours,
LeTopographeFou
Le 01/01/2019 à 03:23, Silent Spike a écrit :
> 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
> <mailto: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."
>>
>> +1
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 10:18 PM Tobias Wrede
>> <list at tobias-wrede.de <mailto:list at tobias-wrede.de>> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>>
>> 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 airport.
>>>
>>> Is this also the case in Europe and Australia?
>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 8:55 AM Dave Swarthout
>>> <daveswarthout at gmail.com <mailto:daveswarthout at gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "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."
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:27 AM Allan Mustard
>>> <allan at mustard.net <mailto: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!
>>> apm-wa
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 4:33 AM bkil <bkil.hu
>>> <http://bkil.hu>+Aq at gmail.com <mailto: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:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Atourism%3Dmotel&type=revision&diff=1755686&oldid=1561324
>>>
>>> Source: based on Wikipedia and recent mapping
>>> experience:
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65702446#map=9/47.1412/18.6632
>>>
>>> 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 <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190101/374f80dd/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list