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.

Viajero, OK, yes I see this was already discussed.

However, while I can understand a scheme based on tertiary and unclassified, most of the roads tagged here are secondary and tertiary, even the dead end roads leading to nowhere (no buildings / caravans / huts visible in the detailed imagery available), so I do think these would need to be downgraded. Maybe its ongoing work, because I see some similar tracks as unclassified as well.

All in all, I think I lean more to Andrew_Finn's tagging suggestions in the link you provided (https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=702664#p702664), where track is still a significant tag for most of these roads.

I do also wonder why especially tracktype=x tagging has not been more universally adopted by the Canadian community (osm.wiki/Key:tracktype). This baffles me. Especially in a country with so many unpaved roads and tracks that may serve functions beyond forestry access, adding tracktype to all unpaved roads/tracks would seem logical to give better information about the solidity and quality of the road from a driving perspective.

Hi Robert,

I noticed you added a lot forestry tracks west of Port Alberni with a road classification that seems disputable, like highway=secondary/tertiary.

This is undesirable. Even if they are build to high standard for resource extraction with heavy equipment, a track remains a track if it doesn't serve the purposes and functions as documented in the OSM wike for a highway=secondary/tertiary, that is, secondary roads and tertiary roads are supposed to connect population centres. Dead end forestry tracks, even when build to a standard that might function as a highway=secondary/tertiary in developing countries where they DO connect population centres, should still be tagged as tracks.
I am actually slightly suprised you added it like this, as I saw you confirming a more sensible tagging scheme by Jack the Ripper (osm.org/user/Jack%20the%20Ripper/diary/41953), that does conform to the more generally accepted road classification standards in OSM and their usage, yet you haven't implemented it here.
Adding extra notes in tags like "comments" or classifying the roads as "service=resource extraction" isn't helpful. What are data consumers supposed to do? Convert all roads tagged with "service=resource extraction" to tracks? This would be really undesirable, just imagine everybody started tagging roads as highway=secondary/tertiary and adding (multiple) secondary imaginary tags just to say: "Sorry, this isn't actually a true secondary/tertiary road, I just tagged it like that for my own purposes, and now you have to deal with it"

Marco

Hendrikklaas, je hebt hier een power=plant aangegeven zonder enige details, wat op de luchtfoto's nog gewoon weilanden zijn. Wat ligt hier nu echt? Het zou helpen als je details aangeeft, zoals de naam van de "plant" en de operator. Is dit b.v. een installatie op zonne-energie of zo? Zo ja, dan is b.v. operator=x, plant:source=solar, plant:method=photovoltaic en plant:output:electricity=x nuttige tagging.

Well, if that was the case, then I am sorry, because I certainly had no intention to move anything, but only wanted to retag the objects.

How do I interpret the OSMCha data though, I have little experience with the tool. Looking at some of the points, it appears a bunch of them somehow ended up on a kind "lined-up" configuration at the bottom of the edited extent??? I have no idea how that would have happened, other than some weird issue I didn't notice in JOSM, or some unintended move of selected nodes.

Anyway, I noticed you reverted the coordinate change, so thanks for fixing if they are now in the correct place again.

Hi dikkeknodel,

Thanks for the detailed reply that explains more about the situation and background of these edits. I am fine if you revert this and enrich the data using the wildcamp tagging.

Cheers, Marco

Hi dikkeknodel,

A couple of thoughts here:
- The tagging of camp sites is still mildly in flux. I can't remember having seen a "camp_type=wildcamp" on the pages when I last checked them, sometime before this edit, but it now seems documented. At the time of this edit by me, with no known established tagging for marking out wildcamps, the best course of action seemed to remove them.
- I do think that tagging wildcamps without any sign, nor even note, that they are wildcamps, is kind of lazy and potentially dangerous. People may expect services (e.g. drinking water) that are not available. This is also a bit worrying coming from someone who actually must be an experienced hiker / climber to even know about, and have used, such a place to start tagging it on OSM. A regular ignorant tourist would not know about such a place at all.
- Also in this respect, while I understand the use of a subtag like "camp_type=x" is logical and much used in OSM, I do have some doubt in the case of wildcamps. Wildcamps are so totally different from any regular 'established/informal' camp site, that a separate tag might have been a better choice, e.g. tourism=wildcamp.
- This is especially so because any website / rendering not knowing about or checking the subtag "camp_type=x", may inadvertently show this on a map targeted at regular tourists without any climbing / hiking experience. This could lead to unpleasant situations and at the very least confusion.

Anyway, it is OSM, so if you want to revert this,you can do it. But as you suggested, I would definetely tag them as "camp_type=wildcamp". Lastly, it might be good to have the actual locations double-checked locally before reverting this. I am definitely not in a position to do that, but don't know your location, or if you have contacts with local mappers and hikers that know the locations and paths leading to them. I do have some doubts about re-adding these without a double check if the locations are actually sound.

Ok, dank voor de reacties. Dit verduidelijkt een hoop. Ik snap nu beter hoe dit gebied tot stand is gekomen, en dat het in ieder geval niet een onnauwkeurige grove intekening is, maar gebaseerd op daadwerkelijke coördinaten gegevens.