Hi bichlepa,

I noticed you added a very large amount of "viewpoints" in the vicinity of Endingen am Kaiserstuhl, that seem to be based on photo locations.

While I appreciate your specific photo based collection technic, that you also describe on your profile page, I would still like to kindly ask you to refrain from adding photo locations as "tourism=viewpoint" features.

While I understand that this is a highly scenic landscape, based on the aerial imagery and detailed cartography of the area, adding viewpoints every 50 meters or so, clutters up the map, and makes it really hard for e.g. professional cartographers to use OSM as a reliable data source.

OSM is not meant to document your photo yourneys, there are other platforms for that. I would therefor also like to kindly ask you to thin out and remove excess viewpoint in this area, and only leave the true "pearls" of the nicest spots as viewpoints.

Kind regards,

Marco

Hoi Otto,

Dan zou ik het verder zo laten. Mocht je later nog meer informatie opduikelen, dan kun je het alsnog aanvullen met b.v. 'pumping_station=wastewater'.

Mvg,

Marco

Beste Otto,

Ik zag dat je in het Amsterdamse havengebied verscheidene objecten, van wat ik aanneem dat (ondergrondse afval-)water pompstations zijn, had getagged met man_made=watermill. Die tag is echter alleen bedoeld voor historische watermolens. Voor moderne pompstations is er man_made=pumping_station. Ik heb deze objecten nu gecorrigeerd. Omdat ik echter niet precies weet wat er daar verpompt wordt, heb ik nog geen pumping_station=x tag toegevoegd. Misschien dat je dat nog zelf kunt doen: osm.wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dpumping_station

Marco

Yes, you're right, I made a mistake here with a couple of bridges in the last few changesets. I'll correct them. It is of course metric ton here in the Netherlands, so I will remove the 'st' per Wiki for the changesets with error.

Sorry, a copy and paste went wrong, and I accidently inserted parts of the text twice. Please ignore double text errors in last post.

Ionvia,

Thanks for taking time to respond. I fIonvia,

Thanks for taking time to respond. I fully agree "Berlin is not a country", but it is the "country capital of Germany". I don't fully understand the reasoning you state of "admin_level" being related to government hierarchy, but that statement not being applicable to capital nodes like Berlin (don't they form an hierarchy as well?).

The Wiki page for "admin_level" also specifically states usage of "admin_level" in combination with the "capital=x" tag:
osm.wiki/Key:admin_level
"Usage": The admin_level=* values are also used for the capital=* and heritage=* tags."

So this seems to be a quite well established practice as well. I agree the "capital=2/3/4..." is listed as well on the "capital=yes" page, but this Overpass Turbo query seems to indicate the first tagging practice is the established one for now on capital nodes:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/VEh

I am just trying to wrap my head around what specific issue this causes in Nominatim that it lead to you wanting to remove a tag on a single node so common on all other capital nodes? It just doesn't make sense to someone not familiar with the inner workings of Nominatim like myself.

Most other country capitals, in fact almost all, seem to have the same admin_level=2 tag on the corresponding capital=yes node, so what is specific about Berlin and Germany?

What I am actually also wanting to say is that if we as community desire a change to the current tagging practice and think that from a technical point of view it is better to switch to:

"capital=2-10"

instead of:

"capital=yes"
"admin_level=2"

for all capital nodes, then maybe it is better to try and get some consensus on tagging mailing list, and then setup a project to change it wholesale (possibly through mechanical edit), instead of an apparently randomn change on a single Berlin node.
ully agree "Berlin is not a country", but it is the "country capital of Germany". I don't fully understand the reasoning you state of "admin_level" being related to government hierarchy, but that statement not being applicable to capital nodes (don't they form an hierarchy as well?).

The Wiki page for "admin_level" also specifically states usage of "admin_level" in combination with the "capital=x" tag:
osm.wiki/Key:admin_level
"Usage": The admin_level=* values are also used for the capital=* and heritage=* tags."
So this seems to be a quite well established practice as well. I agree the "capital=2/3/4..." is listed as well on the "capital=yes" page, but this Overpass Turbo query seems to indicate the first tagging practice is the established one for now on capital nodes:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/VEh

I am just trying to wrap my head around what specific issue this causes in Nominatim that it lead to you wanting to remove a tag on a single node so common on all other capital nodes? It just doesn't make sense to someone not familiar with the inner workings of Nominatim like myself.

Most other country capitals, in fact almost all, seem to have the same admin_level=2 tag on the corresponding capital=yes node, so what is specific about Berlin and Germany?

What I am actually also wanting to say is that if we as community desire a change to the current tagging practice and think that from a technical point of view it is better to switch to:

"capital=2-10"

instead of:

"capital=yes"
"admin_level=2"

for all capital nodes, then maybe it is better to try and get some consensus on tagging mailing list, and then setup a project to change it wholesale (possibly through mechanical edit), instead of an apparently randomn change on a single Berlin node.

Ionvia,

Can you explain a bit why you removed "admin_level=2" from Berlin's place node?

All other countries in Europe, and most in the world, have an "admin_level=2" tag on the node representing the country capital.

By removing this tag, there is no longer an easy way to distinguish country capitals from any lower level ones (state, province etc).

As a negative consequence of this removal, my maps no longer show Berlin as Germany's country capital, as I, and probably a lot of other map makers / cartographers, rely on the admin_level tag to distinguish capitals defined at different administrative levels. It is the only practically usable tag available for this at this moment.

I have the feeling that this removal is trying to fix the wrong thing, and that any problems with Nominatim require either a change in Nominatim, or more likely a change in the OSM boundary relations using the Berlin node as "admin_centre" node, because those boundary relations might be the cause of issues in Nominatim if not properly defined.

In fact, in JOSM's history viewer I see that at about the same time this edit was made 3 months ago, Berlin's admin_level=4 boundary relation was restored by re-adding a "boundary=administrative" to the admin_level=4 relation.

Maybe that edit fixed the Nominatim issue as well, and the removal of admin_level=2 on the Berlin place node can be restored?

I sincerely cannot believe the admin_level=2 tag being the issue, as otherwise all other similar tags on Europe's country capitals, would cause issues with Nominatim as well, which they clearly don't (at least, I do not see an attempt by you to remove those as well due to similar issues).

Marco

De individuele zwerfkeien zijn eigenlijk geen touristische attracties, maar route markeerpunten. Dat is wat tourism=information in combinatie met information=route_marker aangeeft. Als elk individueel markeringspaaltje van elke toeristische route met tourism=attraction wordt gemarkeerd, zijn er feitelijk veel teveel "toeristische attracties" in NL. Als je toch iets wilt markeren als tourism=attraction bij een op toerisme gerichte wandelroute, dan liefst alléén het beginpunt. Zo voorkomen we dat elke op OSM gebaseerde kaart die toeristische attracties weergeeft, helemaal vol komt te staan dubieuze attracties, en we door het bos van "attracties", de echte pareltjes van NL niet meer kunnen zien.

Hi Lucadelu,

Sorry if I got the history of the objects wrong. It may be that you only recycled / re-used the nodes in a relation. Anyway, this is a link to one of these mysterious objects tagged with the name "Snow pit". The others are nearby in the same forest patch just west of the "Capo dell' Uomo" and also tagged tourism=attraction, and with names like "Doppelhaus", "Wine Cistern" etc. Can you verify these objects are real?

osm.org/node/6116134622#map=18/40.72903/13.88757

Hi Lucadelu,

As part of this changeset, you added two nodes named "Snow pit" with a tag of tourism=attraction. I am at loss as to what these represent. In the same area on Ischia, there are other strange tourism=attraction features, like a "Wine Cistern". I would really refrain from using an important tag like tourism=attraction for just anything. Tag it with what it is. If these represent places where people can get water along some route, use one of the drinking water related tags OSM has on offer. And don't give a name to it if it doesn't have a real name. Enter a possible description in the description=x tag.

Hi Anakil,

I think it is just a matter of common sense.

An average historic town / city may have dozens or even hundreds of "classified" heritage registered buildings. Would you consider each of them a "touristic attraction"? I doubt you would...

I fully agree the Wiki page lacks in defining this, but to me, some guidelines are:

- Is it accessible to anyone regardless of age, ability, gender, race or whatever. If your 75 year old "granny" can't visit it, then it probaly doesn't classify as a "touristic attraction" IMO! E.g. I have seen rock climbers tag every individual scalable peak in a climbing hotspot as a "tourism=attraction" ;-( I personally don't agree with that. If anything, a local climbing school catering for beginning climbers, might possibly classify as such, but not a 200m high "fall-to-your-death" vertical rock wall...
- Does the object of interest possibly offer guided tours by either volunteers or employees?
- Is there possibly a small exhibition center as part of the object, or at the very least a touristic board explaining what it is and it's history.
- Do they ask for a (small) fee to maintain and visit the object. Some objects may be free though.
- Do they have special opening hours for tourists?
- Is there possibly an artisanal shop offering local products and / or produce?
- Is the object displayed on official touristic maps?
- Is there possibly a small restaurant with an exhibit of local customs or historic (agriculatural) equipment, so a bit more than "just" an ordinary "amenity=restaurant"?

And last but not least:
- Would *you* personally recommend a visiting friend, or simply a passing tourist you meet on the road and asking for some guidance, going to that specific object?

Personally, I would be prudent taking every building or structure from a municipality's website without considering it against such points. As said, not every heritage building can be visited or is worth visiting.

E.g. if one the farms you entered can be freely visited during the weekend, has a small restaurant or terrace where cyclist can have a refreshment, has a small shop with artisanal products, and maybe even gives a guided tour now and then, then yes, sure!, enter it as a "tourism=attraction". If on the other hand, the only thing you will find is the farmer's dog chasing you away at the entrance gate, then, even if it is heritage listed, I wouldn't consider it a "tourism=attraction".

Classic examples of historic buildings in the countryside serving a double role as touristic attraction are watermills in many countries. Most of the time, they have lost their original function, and only operate on a volunteer basis, maybe still producting flour from locally produced wheat.

Marco

Ik heb meerdere torens gecorrigeerd, en Wikipedia was inderdaad een van de bronnen, maar niet de enige. Ik heb bij de meeste torens meerdere internetbronnen bekeken, en het klopt dat die niet altijd in overeenstemming met elkaar zijn. Soms heeft dit met een latere opbouw te maken (de Euromast is natuurlijk al een prachtig voorbeeld), maar ook lijkt er nog wel eens onnauwkeurigheden te zijn. Meestal scheelt het echter maar een paar meter.

Well, yes, but this conversation could also have started with something like: "Thank you for the work you did on the Sherwood Holiday park (I actually changed and fixed quite a lot more than just this single tag), but we in the UK have our own local customs regarding tagging of holiday parks, and I have henceforth adjusted the tagging to align with these guidelines."

Or you could have silently made the change and not notify me. It is a minor change after all, no real need to bother someone with that.

Anyway, English is not my native tongue, so subtleties sometimes get lost. ;-)

Hi Ed and SK53,

As to part of the local differences of UK versus Netherlands: I think this may boil down to this type of luxury holiday park only relatively recently being introduced in the UK and still being uncommon, thus special enough to classify as touristic attraction. Here in the Netherlands, we've had these kind of parks for well over 30-40 years. There is probably a dozen parks at the level of Sherwood Forest in the Netherlands, and many more (maybe a hundred) that come very close in terms of "luxury holiday home park with leisure facilities". I think they are way less common in the UK, with its long tradition of big coastal caravan parks and camping sites instead.

Anyway, feel free to change it back to local UK custom if you haven't already done so, just keep in mind we have our own local custom as well, if ever you decided to visit the Netherlands or simply edit there occasionally.

Marco

Hi,

You should not confuse the OSM tourism=chalet tag with the "mountain" type chalets in the Alps, it is not the same, which in OSM are either tourism=alpine_hut for remote ones, or tourism=apartment for more luxurious "ski-village" type accommodation.

Have you found time to read the description of tourism=chalet tag in the OSM Wiki? It is here:

osm.wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dchalet

"A type of accommodation in the tourism industry, usually detached. The value chalet describes a [W] holiday cottage, holiday home or vacation home with self-contained cooking and bathroom facilities."

This is exactly what Center Parcs bungalows represent: self contained rented holiday homes with full facilities (cooking, toilet, bathing, heating).

In the Netherlands, which is actually the origin of the Center Parcs company (see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_Parcs), holiday parks like this are never considered a touristic attraction by itself. You go there to have a holiday and stay luxurious, but the basis is the chalet concept as described in the OSM Wiki: a self contained rented home from which you can explore the surroundings of the park to visit real touristic attractions.

In fact, most of the holiday parks like this in the Netherlands, are tagged with tourism=chalet on the outline of the park (but without building tag!, because that would be wrong), to distinguish them from tourism=caravan_park / camping_site.

Hoi M!dgard,

Een ander argument tegen het feit dat dit gasopslag zou zijn, is dat om gas efficiënt op te slaan, je het onder hoge druk vloeibaar moet houden. Daarvoor heb je dan van die bolle hoge druk opslagtanks nodig die je op LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) tankerschepen ziet, en dat zijn dit absoluut niet.

Vroeger, in de tijd van de kolengascentrales, had je ook nog die lage druk "man_made=gasometer" voor tijdelijke opslag van gas, maar die worden nog maar weinig gebruikt, hoewel op de Wikipagina (osm.wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dgasometer), wel nog ook een "moderne" variant hiervan lijkt te staan, zie het plaatje van die gasmeter in Oberhausen. Uit kolen werd trouwens een mengsel van brandbaar waterstofgas, beperkt methaan (aardgas) en koolmonooxide gemaakt dat als "kolen- of lichtgas" de eerste stedelijke gasnetten inging (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtgas).

Hooguit zouden deze onbekende tanks bij de Ham centrale dus nog dergelijke "gasmeters" kunnen zijn, en dan als een zeer beperkte noodopslag kunnen dienen voor als om de een of andere reden de voorziening met gasleidingen tijdelijk verstoord is. Dat zal echter maar kort mogen duren denk ik zo, gezien je in deze relatief kleine tanks maar weinig gas onder lage druk kan opslaan. Zo'n centrale verstookt dat waarschijnlijk in no-time!

Zware diesel-/bunkerolie voor schepen en waarschijnlijk dit soort centrales, is trouwens niet hetzelfde goedje dat wij als "diesel" in onze auto's tanken. Ik weet niet of je mee hebt gekregen, maar kort geleden heeft een schip in de Rotterdamse Haven voor zeer veel olievervuiling gezorgd, door zijn net gevulde bunkertank lek te varen tegen een kade: https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederland/artikel/4253756/groot-olielek-haven-rotterdam-schoonmaak-gaat-dagen-duren

Hoi M!dgard,
Dat is minder vreemd dan het lijkt. Als je de geschiedenis van deze centrales leest op de officiële pagina van EDF
https://edfluminus.edf.com/nl/edf/thermische-centrale-van-gent-ham
dan zie je dat deze centrale van een initieel begin op kolen, vervolgens diesel- / gasolie ging verstoken in nieuwe units in de jaren '60, en dat pas in 2006 de volledige overstap naar gas plaats vond. Ik ben zeker geen expert, maar ik betwijfel eerlijk gezegd of deze tanks, die het meest op diesolietanks lijken, nog in gebruik zijn, ik denk zo dat het gas direct via leidingen wordt aangevoerd, en niet meer lokaal opgeslagen? Maar als jij betere info hebt, verander het dan gerust.

Ah, thanks for giving the link to the history. Yes, you are right it lost this in my changeset. As you figured, this was unintentional, so you can add it back in, or re-survey.

Marco

Mateusz,

I don't speak Polish, can you repeat the message in English?

And are you actually sure you posted this at the right changeset? Although I made edits here, I haven't made any changes related to bicycle tagging. I just enhanced the embankment tagging by adding man_made=embankment and barrier=retaining_wall features.