[Talk-ca] Tourist attraction on private land

[William Davis]

I agree, if you aren't allowed to go there and cannot see it from the 
road, it shouldn't be tagged as a tourist attraction.

On 2021-07-09 21:33, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 at 17:08, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>> the DWG has received a complaint about
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1834726456, mapped as "Al Capone's
>> Hideout" tourist attraction on Letterkenny Road, Quadeville, Ontario.
>>
>> The complainant says that the fact of it being marked on the map leads
>> to trespassing, and would like to have it removed.
>>
>> But clearly it exists, and seems to be a bona fide tourist attraction
>> (type "al capone hideout letterkenny" into your favourite search engine
>> - you'll find some mentions of tourists not allowed, other mentions of
>> driving your car up the hill).
> This is a bit semantic as to what exactly is a "tourist attraction".
>
> IMO: If the owner or authorized agent denies access, it doesn't seem
> to me to be a tourist attraction.
>
> The aerial imagery available in iD doesn't seem to show anything
> through the tree cover, so unless someone has other imagery or
> license-compatible photos, this might not be mappable at all.
> Otherwise, give it building=cabin or historic=ruins and any other tags
> describing verifiable physical properties of the object.
>
> Something can be interesting to tourists without being a tourist attraction.
>
> Say I'm interested in modernist architecture. There are several very
> interesting examples of modernist houses by Arthur Erickson that are
> privately owned. There are websites that list them and discuss their
> architecture. I might want to visit the houses and look at them from
> the road, to learn more about the architecture's relationship with the
> land or whatnot; if possible, I would have liked to go inside. That
> doesn't make them a tourism=attraction, at most we can add architect=*
> and start_date=* on the building.
>
> As an extreme example, if a shed in my backyard got famous because a
> bunch of sites on the internet or some people in local bars said there
> were ghosts there, does that make it a tourist attraction? If I put up
> a sign for it and charge a fee for admission, maybe. If I put up a "no
> entry" sign because I don't want to find strangers in my backyard,
> probably not. If I don't do either (for example because it's out in
> the middle of nowhere and I don't care if anyone goes there) it's more
> debatable, but IMHO probably still not deserving of a
> tourism=attraction tag in OSM - if nothing else, it doesn't really
> seem verifiable in sense of
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability
>
> I suspect there's similar cases of unwilling-tourist-attractions in
> other countries. One could write to the tagging mailing list, but I
> expect we'd get some nice examples but no wider consensus.
>
> Some similar cases I'm thinking of, of objects that are technically on
> private land but occasional non-disruptive visits are accepted, are
> tagged for what they physically are, but not with tourism=attraction
> even though there's websites listing these as places for tourists to
> visit.
>
> --Jarek
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0x20D4690C7C94B9A1_and_old_rev.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 6271 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP public key
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20210709/0027cd44/attachment.key>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20210709/0027cd44/attachment.sig>