[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Rejected - Reworking leisure=bathing_place

[Gruebel]

Yes I agree with you that it makes no sense to map every place where you 
could bathe. This was not the purpose behind the proposal. The point is 
to mark places that have become informal bathing places in the area. 
There is no sign here. But if you are outside on a nice day you will 
most likely find someone bathing there. If such a place is used almost 
every day (in the summer), it leaves traces. So if you want to check 
such a place, when you get there on a nice day, you will see people 
bathing there and probably see trails and other traces. If the water is 
used for other things on the side, this is not a problem. The important 
thing is that the place is perceived as a bathing place by the local 
population. Even if this is not official.

Since there is no sign, the informel subtag is used. It describes 
exactly that. A place or path that is not official but has emerged as 
such. Paths through the forest that are marked with informel=yes also 
have no signs and are usually not marked on official maps. After your 
argumentation they would be also not be verifiable. But if I am on the 
spot I can confirm the path as such. The same would happen with informal 
bathing places.

I have the feeling that I have explained this very badly in the proposal 
and many think I want to map every beautiful potential bathing place. Is 
this correct?

In this Google Image: 
https://www.google.de/maps/@46.8471591,7.3364987,3a,75y,121.54h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMBfFKJ12aGmSkoafV_AZuuYVpaFIVJTshfG9ou!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMBfFKJ12aGmSkoafV_AZuuYVpaFIVJTshfG9ou%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya329.90637-ro-0-fo100!7i11264!8i5632 
. It is exactly such an informal bathing place that I would like to map. 
Since the picture was taken very early in the day there are 
unfortunately no people present. But you can see traces of the people 
who use the place as an informal bathing place. You can see paths and 
several fireplaces. At noon there are almost always several people 
bathing there. Nevertheless, no sign is present and the place is not 
official.


Unfortunately, I had adjusted something in my mails, therefore I can not 
answer the other question directly, so I do this here now. The question was:
I'll ask the same question that I asked previously - when you say 
"bathing place", are you talking about places where you bath (wash 
yourself), or bathe (swim)?


Places meant by the proposal go from bigger lakes to smaller rivers 
(https://www.google.de/maps/@46.8471591,7.3364987,3a,75y,121.54h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMBfFKJ12aGmSkoafV_AZuuYVpaFIVJTshfG9ou!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMBfFKJ12aGmSkoafV_AZuuYVpaFIVJTshfG9ou%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya329.90637-ro-0-fo100!7i11264!8i5632). 
Swimming is not possible in such small rivers. However, you can still 
relax and spend time in the water. That's why I added the sport=swimming 
subtag. When this is added it is clear that you can swim in the water. 
You can theoretically wash in all water sources that are used for 
swimming. But this proposal is not about places where you can wash yourself.

Best,
Gruebel

On 07/07/2021 15:01, Bert -Araali- Van Opstal wrote:
>
> I also ask the same question again , in most poorer countries without 
> proper piped water supplies ALL waters are used to bath, bathe (swim), 
> laundry, car wash, fetching drinking and cooking water etc... . I do 
> remember that in most other countries in Europe the same applies, 
> people are free to access public waters unless signposted otherwise, 
> good idea or not. We don't need this tag.
>
> I stick with "We don't map nature baths without signage (it is not 
> verifiable) other than the surface, e.g. sand, rock and the 
> paths/roads leading to it. There must be a sign as a bare minimum to 
> tag it using the tags below." as in our wiki.
> If you feel the need to do otherwise you could attempt to change this 
> statement and use an additional amenity=public_bath or nature_bath ? 
> Doesn't seem good idea to me people go for nature bathing to be 
> private, not the ones commonly known, cliff diving etc... all 
> different interest groups and different intentions using natural 
> features. Compare it with other "sports" not practised in a place 
> modified by humans.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Bert Araali
>
> On 06/07/2021 14:37, gruebel2020 at online.de wrote:
>> Voting on "Reworking leisure=bathing place" has ended. It was 
>> rejected with 9 votes against and 8 votes for (3 abstentions).
>>
>> A large part of the votes against the proposal is because of the poor 
>> verifiability. In my opinion the places that are meant in this 
>> proposal are clear and verifiable. I had tried to set up many rules 
>> to make this clear for others. Apparently these were not sufficient 
>> or poorly defined by me.
>>
>> I would revise the proposal in the future and propose it again. I am 
>> wondering if you have any ideas to improve the verifiability.
>> Maybe you have other images that could act as examples. I know 
>> several places, but unfortunately I have hardly taken any pictures of 
>> them so far.
>>
>> I am still convinced that these locations have sufficient frequency 
>> and relevance to continue working on them.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> 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/20210707/d4e992f6/attachment.htm>