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

Wed Jul 7 14:45:44 UTC 2021

Exactly this.

When hiking for long miles and/or days, it's useful to know which places
are suitable to bathe/swim and normally used by people in the wild. Of
course I know I can enter the water everywhere, but I want to know and
visit places with trails that access them, where is possible to take a
rest and swim/bathe for a while.

Regards.

Às 11:26 de 07/07/2021, mail at marcos-martinez.net escreveu:
>
> 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 <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> <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/20210707/8f0e78b5/attachment-0001.htm>