I am in the B category for my vision of OSM. I had not voted on these because they aren't important to me and i will never probably use either tag but the work you've done is good and I just now voted Yes on both.
While I was reading through the table of possible tourism=*_hut I noticed that you mentioned mountain_hut several times but it was not originally included in the table. I assumed you meant to say alpine_hut and edited the proposal replacing mountain_hut with alpine_hut. I am new to this and after the fact, realized I should have brought it up here first. Then thinking I'd better backtrack and undo my edits, I checked with Taginfo and found that mountain_hut is used 7 times — not very often but it is there. So I took the further liberty of adding it to the list of keys in the table. My apologies if I was out of line. But my discovery does point out the need to somehow better define what these accommodations are and unify the ones we can agree need to be unified. Those various types of huts need to be either better differentiated or if that can't be done, put together under fewer keys. I also agree that the differences between a hotel, hostel, guest_house, and motel are perhaps to fine to worry about. More work ahead.... Alaska Dave On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 7:41 PM, nounours77 <kuessemondtaegl...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi there, > > Not sure if this is the right place for this philosophical question. But > starting from the comment of > Brycenesbitt<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Brycenesbitt> to > my apartment-proposal "*I feel this will become yet another piece of > unmaintanable data in OSM." *and several comments I got on my > boat_sharing proposal "*just use it, don't go through proposal process*" > I think it's a important question. What do we define tags for? > > *A) OSM is just a base layer* > We tag just for general features of the landscape, and maybe roads. This > will make a beautiful map, which then can be used as a base layer, e.g. for > a holiday-apartment renting agency, which than can render all there > apartments from their own private database as an overlay on OSM base layer. > => this will mean, "we" do not have to maintain the apartment info, nor > has the provider to bother with OSM. This is much easier. But means that > the information is only avaible on the agencies website, and thus there > will be million places I have to look for the info. > > *B) OSM as a fully featured geobased information system* > We see of OSM a a standalone, fully featured geobased information system. > I can take the map in my pocket (like on the iPhone App "PocketEarth", or > "OsmAnd"), and will everywhere have any kind of information. I'm driving > through a village, I like it, and I want to stay. So, where are the next > nice holiday-apartments around me? > Of course, this only works, if the data is maintained and current. But: I > want OSM to get important enough that every service provider offering a > service to a wide enough public is just forced in his own interest to > publish it's data on OSM and keep it current. > > As a conclusion for us this means: Yes, we need a defined tagging > (accepted proposal) for tourism=apartment, ifnot, never ever all service > providers will put their apartment on OSM. And never the Apps like > PocketEarth or OsmAnd will support to render it. > I was advised by several persons that I should just use > "tourism=boat_sharing", and not bother about going through a proposal and > voting process. BUT: I asked OsmAnd to render the tag, and the answer was - > quite understandable: "*Only officially supported tags will be rendered*". > There we are again with the well know snake which bites it's tail: No data > - no rendering. No rendering, nobody collects data or publishes it on OSM. > My answer to this would be: make a reasonable, understandable, clear and > clean tagging scheme, discuss it, vote it, document it. If done properly, > the data will come and the rendering as well. > > Please, what is your vision of OSM? A or B? > > If A, I will stop bothering about tourism=apartment, amenity=boat_sharing, > or amenity=nursery, since this are all "service informations" you can argue > you can find somewhere else ... > But if it's B), then we need all that to make OSM the best, most complete > and inevitable geobased information system. > > Thanks for your comments, and yes, I reopened the boat_sharing proposal > for voting, just in case somebody wants to support me!!! > > Have a nice week-end, > > Nounours77 > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boat_sharing > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/apartment > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
