[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Big Bench
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 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
> 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
> 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
> Cheers Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging