Proposal talk:Tag:shelter type=rock shelter

Cave classifications

"a rock overhang is not like a cave, which is essentially an enclosed cavity with a small entrance opening. A cave you might need a torch to explore, a rock overhang is not like that." - in at least some cave classification rock shelters are considered to be a type of cave. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I admit that I've only referred to the documentation for natural=cave_entrance and wikipedia. I don't deny that "at least some cave classification rock shelters are considered to be a type of cave" after all most of the rock shelters I want a tag for have a name like "Foobar Cave". But I still feel we need a way to distinguish a rock overhang from a cave that you'd go deeper inside. --Aharvey (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Shelter vs rock feature

I have no opinion on tag per se yet. While your description of amenity=* is a nice reminder, my question is whether a natural=* tag in combination or replacing this tag to describe the space would be a better idea (although you may point out this a common issue to amenity=shelter). At a glance, I can't really find any objects tagged as such with the physical feature represented. ---- Kovposch (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your position now. Would it possible for you to kindly suggest some possible combinations to use with it? It would help clean up confusions on whether it is a cave, overhang, ledge, etc. ---- Kovposch (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy with Andrew's suggested tagging scheme. See also the Wikipedia article Rock Shelter, which describes this exact feature. ---- Daviewales (talk) 8:59, 6 September 2020 (AEST)

I have this question as he suggested "Furthermore natural=cave_entrance is wrong as this is "An entrance to a cave: a natural underground space large enough for a human to enter", a rock overhang is not like a cave, which is essentially an enclosed cavity with a small entrance opening. A cave you might need a torch to explore, a rock overhang is not like that. " without pointing to a correct alternative for the natural=* feature. He could keep this proposal to shelters if he wants to. ---- Kovposch (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not sure I follow this thread, this proposal is just to formalise the existing shelter_type=rock_shelter tag as the accepted way to map a rock shelter, cave entrance mapping is unaffected. As for if this should use a natural tag like natural=rock_shelter, honestly I have no problem if someone wanted to put together a proposal for that, I simply propose shelter_type=rock_shelter since it was already documented on the wiki and had existing use in the OSM database so I thought it made sense to further formalise this existing tag than create a new one. --Aharvey (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

If some of these features are clearly not a cave entrace, then a new natural tag like natural=rock_shelter would be better. --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

What is a cave?

Discussion in German: DE talk:Cave

Is there a size or shape or... to differentiate cave(entrance)from other rock cutting features? If yes how to map them? --SLMapper1 (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure you'll ever be able to specify exactly where the line between a rock shelter and a proper cave is but from my experience as a good rule of thumb a rock shelter you'll never need any artificial lighting to see, but a proper cave that you enter it will get dark and sunlight alone won't be enough to see. In a rock shelter at least one side will be completly open to the air and light, but a cave that you enter into might only have a small opening. --Aharvey (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

rock_shelter tagging in Saxon Switzerland

In my region we have a national park with big sandstone features. You can basically use carved out holes as rock_shelters around every second corner. The ones the the community here decided to tag a such though, were officially recognized ones. Due to it being national park, sleeping outside is generally not permitted besides in those official rock_shelters. I think the tag definitely has it's purpose but we might also want to look for a new natural tag. According to Wikipedia natural=abri might be good. Multiple languages have similar words for it (German:abri; French: abri sous roche; Spanish:abrigo rocoso) (very Europe centered but was what I could find with a quick look)

By convention OSM tags use British English, I don't know what the brits know this as but with English being the most universal language it's probably a better choice than the options you've listed there. Certainly we should list the other terms it's known as locally on the wiki to aid finding and iD/JOSM presets can of course translate into native languages. I'll note that this tag is really just to map the rock feature as a place that people can shelter in/under, whether camping is allowed or not isn't implied by this tag. --Aharvey (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Rock shelter - natural or man made?

Just without knowing your considerations of describing a small cave or grotto as "rock shelter", I would expect something man made, when I read about a rock shelter. In mediterranean countries, they are quite common, shelters partly based on a natural rock formation which have been enlarged or the entrance of which has been closed by a stone wall with a door, these were to be used as shepherds shelter, to give shelter to cattle (sheep, goats, etc.) or earlier to store some food (grain, oil or wine, in Switzerland we have some to store Ice from the winter, it was to be used it in summer, the blocks of Ice were cut out and sold to people before electric fridges were available).

In southern Italy, rock cut dwellings, storage places and cattle shelters are quite common, often from mediaval or byzantine age, I have seen the same in Greece or Israel. Some of them are mapped as archeological sites, some just as POI or simply nothing there on the map... You might consider this and make a clear definition, what the proposed "rock shelter" would mean. Only my five cents - Martin - Mboesch (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm only familiar with those in my neck of the woods and they are all natural with no man made elements, so those examples you've given are good. Part of reaching out with this proposal is to hear from other parts of the world to ensure we do have the whole world covered. So thank you for providing these examples but the fact that these semi natural semi man made rock shelters exist is probably the only argument that would convince me to have a separate natural=rock_shelter tag from the amenity=shelter one. If you can provide some photos or links to these then we can decide which way to take this tag. --Aharvey (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I just found a rock overhang that then goes onto become a cave entrance, so the node on the cliff must be tagged both cave entrance and rock shelter, so the proposal here works well since you can add both tags, if you used a natural tag for rock shelters then you can't double tag as both shelter and entrance. --Aharvey (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Rock shelters and rock overhangs in Australia

My experience is in the context of Australian bushwalking/hiking. In many sandstone areas of Australia there are natural shelters almost everywhere: rock overhangs which don't need a torch/flashlight and which could provide shelter from the rain. In some places there would be thousands of these per square kilometre, but they are not significant and need not be mapped. They are just part of the texture of the land. Probably most of these have never been used as shelter, even though they COULD be used as shelter.

Occasionally, though, one of those overhangs has in some way been made into a recognized shelter. Perhaps it has been designated by the local council; perhaps a bench has been installed for seating; perhaps a signpost is present; perhaps there is some recorded historical use; or perhaps a nearby walking route makes a point of diverting to it. Those overhangs are worth mapping, and it would be reasonable for them to be designated as shelters, and one would not be confused to find them rendered with the symbol for a shelter. However, there are not many such shelters, and mostly in the Blue Mountains.

There are also overhangs which bushwalkers and others refer to as caves. These are deeper openings with more substantial overhangs, sometimes also with a relatively level earth/rock/sand floor suitable for sleeping. There may be a history of use by bushwalkers for overnight sleeping, and/or there may be historical use by indigenous people for ceremonial or practical purposes. These are invariably referred to as caves, and are named as caves (e.g. "Coxs Cave" in Andrew's example photo). They are depicted with a symbol resembling a cave mouth on all Australian maps that I am acquainted with: official government maps, tourist maps, and maps by/for bushwalkers. They are considered to be natural features, and conservation bodies try to preserve them as such.

I propose to resolve this dichotomy by the following policy: if a rock overhang is equipped with one or more amenity features (such as seating, a picnic table, or an artificial floor), or is locally signed as a shelter, then it should be tagged as a shelter. Otherwise, if a rock overhang is in its natural state and is locally known as a cave or is more than 2 metres deep, it should be tagged as a natural cave entrance.

Roger Browne (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. My original motivation for formalising this tag was I was annoyed that I couldn't distinguish the caves you'll find at Jenolan from those bushwalkers use to shelter in from bad weather. I wanted to render these different kinds of features differently on my bushwalking map https://www.beyondtracks.com/map. But across Sydney most of these are all sharing the same tag. Though I can't understand the distinction between the two things you've described here, I see them as all the same rock overhangs that people shelter under. Yes some are not named and some are named but if it has a name or not just means if the name tag will be added. Do you have specific examples from Sydney of different kinds? --Aharvey (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your motivation. It would certainly be useful to distinguish between deep caves and shallow overhangs. I think the most straightforward way to do this would be with the tag "depth=* metres". Each renderer can select a depth threshold according to the purpose of the map.

Local to you, near Mt Victoria, is Bushrangers Cave. It is node 3182346544 on OSM, and is currently tagged "natural=cave_entrance". From memory, this cave is about 5 metres deep and very suitable for use as a shelter, so under your proposal it would be "amenity=shelter". However, at the back of this cave a small passage leads off at an angle for a further twelve metres. The start of this passage is not obvious, and most people would only know of the "shelter" part, however people can squeeze through the extended passage and a torch is absolutely required to explore this. So, if this further small passage is taken into account this would be "natural=cave_entrance".

Now suppose a rockfall destroys the narrow deeper passage. Does this mean that the "natural" feature should suddenly be re-tagged as an "amenity" feature? It seems more straightforward to just change a "depth" tag. --Roger Browne (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Don’t use amenty=shelter for natural rock overhangs

I oppose this proposal because I don't think natural, shallow cave opening should be mapped as amenity=shelter. That feature is normally man-made: all the types of shelter listed on amenity=shelter are clearly designed as shelters, except for this one. A rock overhang or shallow cave opening is a natural geological feature. I would recommend use of natural=cave_entrance plus length=* and depth=* in meters, or perhaps a new tag like natural=rock_overhang, instead. --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)