[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - nudism:designated

Tamas Rell tamasrell at gmail.com
Mon Mar 1 11:51:01 UTC 2021


Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2021. márc.
1., H, 12:18):

> Am Mo., 1. März 2021 um 11:31 Uhr schrieb Tamas Rell <tamasrell at gmail.com
> >:
>
>> In my understanding nudism:yes is less specific, it's simply a
>> beach where people take their clothes off, but the legal status is unknown.
>>
>>
> the wiki says "yes" means it is "allowed and expected". Allowed is a legal
> setting.
>

Yet, I still feel a difference between it's allowed because the laws in
that country don't really restrict public nudity or it's allowed because
there's a huge, officially looking FKK sign at the beach.

"Allowed and expected" is too broad. It doesn't make a difference between a
remote, wild beach which is usually used by nudists and Vera Playa. It's a
good question if we need to indicate this difference on the map, but if we
do so then I think the designated category is needed (more than obligatory).

If we don't want to indicate this difference, then "yes / optional / no"
would be enough. To be honest, it would make this whole categorization a
lot more simple, so I'm not really against it.

Cheers,
Tamas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210301/ee29a733/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list