[talk-au] amenity=shelter

[Hugh Barnes]

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 10:53:41 +1000
Ashley Kyd <ash at kyd.com.au> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I was having a conversation the other day when the purpose of
> amenity=shelter was brought into question.
> 
> http://barstool.ash.ms/photos/07082009-shelter.jpg
> 
> Above is a photo I took while out the other day. It's a shelter with a
> picnic area, bbq, and some benches under it. Can I clarify whether
> this is actually supposed to be
> *amenity=shelter;tourism=picnic_site*, or perhaps something different?
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dshelter
> 

I just did a lot of tagging of this sort of thing and have been
studying the wiki and also making up my own mind (all you can do,
ultimately).

I would use amenity=shelter for something that's set up as a shelter
and that's all it is. Otherwise, I'd treat shelter like a property and
apply shelter=yes on top of other amenities or whatever. (Ditto for
amenity=lamp and lit=yes|no.)

In this case, you've got several amenities under one roof. I'd be
inclined to map them as separate nodes, each with shelter=yes or, I
dunno, wrap them in a membership relation of some kind and apply
shelter=yes to that. Incidentally, I don't think benches are
significant to note in close proximity to tables.

I think I'm pretty much saying what Brent said in his reply [1] and I
also agree about the area itself being the picnic area [2] (weird how
these things come up just after you thought about them ~:~|), not so
much a node.

I also thought today that we shouldn't be assuming the purpose of
tables. They are for picnics or sitting and stealing someone's
unsecured wifi, or whatever you like :) Since today, I started to just
use amenity=table. Balls to OSM telling you what a table is for.

But, as usual, I digress.

Cheers

[1]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2009-August/002709.html
[2]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2009-August/002712.html