[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 12:43, Vɑdɪm <vadp.devl at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think you guys forgot one thing: the OSM is not specifically about UK,
> Australia or any other country. It's a global map.
>

I didn't forget that.  I'm pretty sure some of the others didn't forget
that either.

>
> In your region you may perhaps you may not have any dedicated areas for
> sunbathing, so -- don't use the tag. On the other hand I could imagine
> there
> are some countries you could be jailed if you'd try to sunbathe in the
> fields. You may also find something in the middle.
>

It's the bit in the middle that is the problem.  You seem determined to
write a
proposal that suggests it is OK to map unverifiable sunbathing areas.  I,
for one,
will vote against a proposal which encourages mapping unverifiable
sunbathing
areas.

>
> Here and then I've found some areas designated for sunbathing, and I wanted
> to map it accordingly.
>

Great.  Write your proposal around those designated areas.  Put photos of
the signage
in the proposal, if you have them.  I'm happy to believe there are places
with signs
saying sunbathing is prohibited whether you have examples or not, because
I've read
reports of such areas where tourists were penalized for sunbathing in areas
where
it was prohibited.

>
> Tag:leisure=fishing simply says "Place for fishing", that's it literally.
> So
> probably you use your *personal assumptions* if using this tag which could
> not be obvious for the others.
>

My personal assumption is that something must be verifiable to be
mappable.  I'm more
flexible than some here.  Some would insist on signage on the ground, I'd
accept regulations
on an official website or the statement of a property owner, or the
statement of a club which
has fishing rights to a stretch of river.  What I would not do is notice a
pond in the UK with
some fish in it and assume that fishing is permitted.  Other countries may
have other rules,
but unless I were sure of those rules I wouldn't map a pond with fish in it
as leisure=fishing
unless I could find evidence that were the case.  It's not enough to see
somebody fishing
there as it may be the owner of the pond and the owner is the only one
permitted to fish there.

But if you stick to the dedicated areas (which the leisure=fishing currently
> does not require) it becomes much easier to verify it. That's what I'm
> using
> in the proposal.
>

The wiki page for leisure=fishing doesn't require verifiability because
that is an underlying
assumption of  OSM.  Nor does it say "map ponds with fish in them as
leisure=fishing"
because that would be as bad as "if you see sunshades that's a sunbathing
area."

>
> leisure=swimming_area as per the wiki a signage is not required, buoys,
> etc.
> are optional. It just needs to be an "officially designated place".
>

Yes.  Officially designated.  Verifiable.  Not "there's some water so you
can swim in it" or even
"I once saw somebody swimming there."

amenity=lounger -- could be a movable and seasonal object.
>

Could be.  But in a public area probably relatively stable for long periods
of time.  Still
a physical object, though, and intrinsically verifiable.  We don't put
amenity=lounger on
an area where somebody might one day put a lounger.

leisure=outdoor_seating in some countries could be just a part of a street
> in a good weather.
>

Could be.  Mappers ought to have some idea of local conventions and not
make assumptions.
However, outdoor seats are physical objects.  Many countries have laws
about putting seats
on sidewalks.  I'm confident that the outdoor seating I've mapped is stable
in the long-term
because I've observed it over a period of years, and that it will be there
as long as the operator
remains in business.

Tag:leisure=dance could be not only dance halls, but also "other venues
> which offer social dancing or participation dancing". Again a signage is
> not
> required.
>

How do you know those venues offer social or participation dancing without
signage or
the operator's website saying so?  Again, it comes down to verifiability.
I mentioned only
signage because by that stage I thought I'd made my point about
VERIFIABILITY.  I hadn't
realized I was dealing with somebody who couldn't understand VERIFIABILITY.

Your proposal doesn't have to explicitly mention verifiability because that
is an underlying
principle of OSM.  But if it encourages guesswork then I will vote against
it, and I expect
some others will too.  Your choice.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191020/aaf70015/attachment.html>