I think it should be k kept under attraction, because a large mappable maze is certainly an interest of tourists - especially if it is part of a larger complex.
Then it would be tourism=attraction attraction=maze maze=hedge or attraction:maze=hedge instead of attraction=maze + maze=hedge (so a generic maze would be attraction:maze=yes) I actually like this better. I don’t know which is better, but it certainly feels that any large maze - new or historic - is a form of attraction, so it should go into that - Especially if we are going to have a definition for special gardens in there as well. I think we can just label it historic or heritage or something if it fits for the maze http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic> > Other: wall, boundary_stone, well, boundary_marker, folly is a maze a “folly”? I think it is. so tourism=attraction attraction:maze=hedge historic=other Javbw > On Feb 19, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 19/02/2015 8:15 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: >> The problem with >> >> tourism=attraction >> attraction=maze >> >> Is that attraction is a top level tag, not a subtag of tourism=attraction. >> So maybe: >> >> tourism=attraction >> type=maze >> subtypes=labyrinth;hedge >> > > I'd do > > tourism=maze ... similar to zoo, theme park, museum, artwork. > > and if necessary sub tag under that .. there are lots of different types .. > see wikipedia > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
