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

Wed Jul 7 14:26:30 UTC 2021

Hi folks, 

I fully understand the need for this tag. 

_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._ 

-> This is not about access rights, it is about highlighting specific
spots which stand out within its surroundings out and/or might be
difficult to find. 

Nobody would put this tag on every meter along the Nile just because you
CAN get into the water there (which is obvious) but, for example, rather
pinpoint those spots along rivers that don't carry much water and which
have natural pools that allow your body to submerge. Very useful when
hiking... 

Cheers, 

Marcos 

Am 07.07.2021 16:04, schrieb 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

_______________________________________________
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/e7a2ce01/attachment.htm>