Proposal:Bungee

A tag for a permanent bungee jump
[1]

Rendering

??

We currently don't have a "toplevel" attraction tag, so it might not be a good idea to add it? -- Ulfl 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless we use sport=bungee, but I don't know if it qualifies as a sport. Sounds close enough to me. --Geoff 13:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

- not really a sport IMO, moved to tourism to simplify things. Myfanwy 09:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading this, I'm asking myself if this bungee thing will appear "standalone" somewhere or only as a part of a bigger attraction (any photos?). -- Ulfl 07:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- all the ones i know of in NZ (auckland harbour bridge; Victoria St. West, auckland; kawerau bride, queenstown; various others in queenstown) exist solely on their own, they are not part of an amusement park or any other group of items). there may well be others that are in parks, but they do exist on their own. check the wikipedia article (link above) for examples and photos Myfanwy 22:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm not sure how to tag it, but some bungys work in the opposite way: the 'rider' is pulled down against the elastic cord, then released to be propelled into the air, still attached to the ground/structure [2] for an example. i've gone with up and down for now, under the direction tag. This is sometimes known as a 'catapult' Myfanwy 09:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is also the "horizontal" bungee now operating somewhere in NZ - it's like the vertical catapult except they catapult you at about a 30 degree angle out over a valley. I'm sure they'll keep adding other variations to attract the adrenalin junkies. And I think this should definitely be a tourism tag rather than a sport - the majority of tickets for these are sold to people from out of town. DancingFool 00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah, sorry for the mess. it is actually proposed as a tourism tag, i moved things around a bit but forgot to update some stuff Myfanwy 02:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have had a hard time making up my mind about this one so have taken my time in commenting. Putting something very, very specific , i.e. Bungee, under tourism= seems an overkill to me. I've been coping with similar situations by using tourism=attraction and then relying on name= and description= to resolve exactly what it is. That is not going to be too useful for search engines though. I think therefore that Ulfl has the correct solution by proposing a new top level attraction= tag and using tourism=attraction attraction=bungee. Then more values can be added later, I would be proposing attraction=theme_park and I can think of several others: water_park, cave, pony_rides ... MikeCollinson 10:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

- i think Ulf *didn't* want to add the top-level attraction category, that was why i changed it from attraction to tourism. your other point may be valid though - there will be a lot of 'minor' attractions that don't warrant their own tag Myfanwy 02:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Is not open yet, proposed for 2007-12-27 if there are no major objections in the interim