[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Big Bench

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed May 19 07:56:16 UTC 2021

On 18/5/21 7:54 pm, nathan case wrote:
> I think this is a good approach and is better than amenity.
> From the Wiki pages:
> Tourism: “Places and things of specific interest to tourists including 
> places to see, places to stay, things and places providing information 
> and support to tourists."
> Amenity: “For describing useful and important facilities for visitors 
> and residents. Facilities include for example toilets, telephones, 
> banks, pharmacies, prisons and schools."
> I don’t think a big bench is a useful or important facility, but may 
> be a place of interest for tourists (e.g. for the views or for taking 
> photos on).
If I am tired and looking for a place to sit and rest the last thing I 
would want is a bench I have to climb to use.
> As for falling under the tourism=artwork tag, it could do. There is 
> already artwork_type=bench which I guess this may be for highly 
> decorated benches. Big furniture doesn’t really seem like art to me 
> but is, of course, highly subjective.
> Also: could I suggest you modify the proposal to “big furniture” or 
> something like that? I have seen giant chairs (rather than benches) 
> and so including them in your scheme would be useful (i.e. 
> giant_furniture=chair)

Good thought...

Giant rocking chair https://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/43104

Arr another link below.

Australia also has big produce:

big banana https://bigbanana.com/

big orange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Orange_(South_Australia)

big lobster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lobster

These are all tourist attractions....

One feature = one OSM entry.

If there is a view point it should be a separate OSM node. Car parks, 
cliff tops etc with views get a separate entry for the view point.

> *From:*Francesco Ansanelli <francians at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 18, 2021 5:54 AM
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Big Bench
> Hello,
> 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:
> tourism=giant_furniture
> + giant_furniture=bench
> + brand=Big Bench
> In this way, most of the example made by Schoschi, are suitable to be 
> adapted.
> May this be an acceptable 
> compromise?https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Attraction_Review-g35779-d8761357-Reviews-World_s_Largest_Rocking_Chair-Casey_Illinois.html#photos;aggregationId=&albumid=&filter=7&ff=157078770
> Francesco
> Il lun 17 mag 2021, 19:53 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com 
> <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> ha scritto:
>     sent from a phone
>     https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Attraction_Review-g35779-d8761357-Reviews-World_s_Largest_Rocking_Chair-Casey_Illinois.html#photos;aggregationId=&albumid=&filter=7&ff=157078770
>         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
>     Cheers Martin
>     _______________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210519/83523833/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list