[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Big Bench
etcommands at gmail.com
Wed May 19 01:23:56 UTC 2021
I would submit that perhaps this proposal should be expanded to include
other oversized objects besides furniture. Consider these examples in
Corn cobs 
Novelty statues 
And there are many other types of objects documented on this website.
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 17:12:54 +0300
> From: Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Big Bench
> Message-ID: <d3c3d329-33cb-0e4b-6e53-1e74d678b2d2 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
> I would use tourism=viewpoint
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dviewpoint>) or
> tourism=attraction / tourism=artwork if it's not a view point. I
> understood that most of them are intended as viewpoints ?
> For attribution combine with attraction=*, artwork_type=*, brand=*,
> operator=*, name=* etc.... A good value seems to me oversized_furniture,
> better then a term using bench which is very specific. There might also
> be big tables, big chairs, big cabinets etc... so I would prefer not to
> be too specific in value semantics.
> If it's not a viewpoint but just intended as artwork it becomes
> tourism=artwork. Not considered as art but just a curiosity or platform
> design tourism=attraction. All these tourism tags can still be combined
> with any of the above attribution tags.
> Key is that the mapper need to make a choice what the primary intention
> is, a viewpoint, an artwork or an attraction. If all use the same
> attributes it would be easy to retag (in case of disputes or different
> opinion) without loss of attribute data, by just changing the top level
> tourism tag. This scheme uses only existing and documented tags, just
> add some examples for specific attribute values and you are done.
> Bert Araali
> On 18/05/2021 07:53, Francesco Ansanelli wrote:
>> I copy here too:
>> Many people disagree about using or implying amenity=bench for such
>> features. If we need a more wide spread tagging scheme I may adapt my
>> proposal to:
>> + giant_furniture=bench
>> + brand=Big Bench
>> In this way, most of the example made by Schoschi, are suitable to be
>> May this be an acceptable compromise?
>> Il lun 17 mag 2021, 19:53 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com
>> <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> ha scritto:
>> sent from a phone
>>> On 17 May 2021, at 18:54, Francesco Ansanelli
>>> <francians at gmail.com <mailto:francians at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> I may agree on brand=Big bench, it's a kind of brand in the end.
>> if Big bench is a brand the tag is fine, but it is not sufficient.
>> You’d still need a tag to describe it. amenity=bench is not
>> suitable IMHO, you have to climb on these and to use them, a
>> certain ability is required.
>> Here’s an example for a big bench that is probably not from this
>> company: https://moabitonline.de/738 <https://moabitonline.de/738>
>> Cheers Martin
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210518/4980819f/attachment.htm>
> Subject: Digest Footer
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging