Proposed features/Attributes

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a new page to discuss the subkeys of amenity=bench

  • permanent=yes/no for those not movable without heavy machinery, i.e. likely to not be moved away by vandals. Consensus has it that this tag is better than bench=permanent.
  • movable=yes/no for an alternative to permanent=yes
  • length=* objective measurement of bench size
  • width=* an alternative name for length=*
  • seats=* subjective measurement of people who can sit on bench
  • capacity=* alternative name for capacity=*
  • inmemorium=* name in whose memory the bench was placed.
Moved to "attrributes", as these are mostly not specific to benches. Chriscf 17:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The vote is to decide if a attribute is useful for amenity=bench and not if the attributes are useful in general! While length=* can be very useful in conjunction with other keys, it is not with bench. --Phobie 06:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
-1 to you for not actually reading the comments with the votes. Chriscf 13:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Voting on optional values

Please read the talk page and then vote with your comments as below:
Usage: "{{Vote|yes/no}} <your comment> --~~~~"


permanent=yes/no

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. only sensible way to tag this --Skippern 13:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. instead of bench=permanent S.A.L. 21:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. this looks much better Sletuffe 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Meme 05:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. 99% of objects in OSM are permanent. This is why we map them. Tag the unusual case (moveable=yes), not the usual one. --achadwick 23:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. if it is movable, it should not be tagged at all --Skratz 12:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Nop 23:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. see moveable --JND 17:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Ckruetze 11:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. benches might be removed e.g. during winter-time; not adding a tag could cause accidental removal from map --jklippel 08:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. if the object is not permanent it should be some tag like month_off or something like opening_hours --Skyper 12:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Kslotte 16:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

movable=yes/no

  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. see previous vote --Skippern 13:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. to differentiate if it is anchored in the bottom or not anchored but still for permanent usage (not limited by time ... e.g. for a festival). It should be possible to use permanent=yes/no AND movable=yes/no S.A.L. 21:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. too, I don't care which one of movable or permanent but not both because they sound too much duplicates Sletuffe 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. see above for reasoning. Usable in combination with almost everything else in OSM. Default this to "no" please! --achadwick 23:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Skratz 12:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. This is redundant --Nop 23:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. It should be an execption that moveable objects are tagged, it should only be used if the bench is moveable in a restricted area --JND 17:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Ckruetze 11:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. moveable objects should not be mapped --jklippel 08:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. see permanent --Skyper 12:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Permanents=yes/no is better. --Kslotte 16:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

length=*

  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Length of what? should we run around with measure tape also now? --Skippern 13:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I prefer the width or seats version Sletuffe 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Think width fits better S.A.L. 11:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Avoid using with benches, but perfectly reasonable for othyer things with dimensions. --achadwick 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I prefer seats= over this or over using both. --Skratz 12:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Too much detail, better keep things simple. --Nop 23:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. see width --JND 17:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Width sounds better, I think. --Ckruetze 11:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. too much detail --jklippel 08:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. see width --Skyper 12:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. width is better. --Kslotte 16:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. better map as a way, this will give length and also orientation. --Extropy 07:38, 16 July 2012 (BST)

width=*

  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Width of what? should we run around with measure tape also now? --Skippern 13:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. why not after all if someone wants to measure the width Sletuffe 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Fits better than length ... and why not using it? S.A.L. 11:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Usable in comb. with non-bench-related tagging. Suggest this be the only one suggested for amenity=bench. --achadwick 23:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Skratz 12:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Too much detail, better keep things simple. --Nop 23:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Width should be in meter! This is measurable and might be helpfull. It could even be used by the renderer --JND 17:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. If somebody wants to mesure it, sure, why not. --Ckruetze 11:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. too much detail --jklippel 08:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. see S.A.L. --Skyper 12:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Kslotte 16:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. better map as a way, this will give width and also orientation. --Extropy 07:39, 16 July 2012 (BST)

seats=*

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. only for rough estimate --Skippern 13:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Change of vote. --Skippern 10:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. if nothing about seats already exist but it doesn't looks that yes Sletuffe 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Can be helpful S.A.L. 11:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. capacity=* is better, and established. --achadwick 23:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I cannot find anything about capacity ? where did you find it ? (the only thing I found is in the WikiProject Piste Maps project and capacity refers to number of person per hour. Sletuffe 23:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
True, capacity isn't properly documented yet but already widely used with amenity=parking, amenity=bicycle_parking and amenity=taxi.
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. second the suggestion of capacity=* --Skippern 10:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. in favor of capacity=* --Skratz 12:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Too much detail, better keep things simple. --Nop 23:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Butt width is variable, therefore this tag is useless in practice. --Cohort 23:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. see width --JND 17:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Does it seat 3 adults, 3 kids? It is only accurate if you define something like 1 seat = xy cm, but instead of doing that width would be easier to use and understand. --Ckruetze 11:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. the same cause like Ckruetze --rurseekatze 16:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. can be helpful - should be measured in "average number of adults" ;) --jklippel 08:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. no clearly defined definition - if any capacity would be better --Skyper 12:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. subjective --Kslotte 16:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

capacity=*

  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. see width --JND 17:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Ckruetze 11:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Skippern 03:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I prefer seats=* --jklippel 08:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. only useful if you have real seats or at least shapes for each butt --Skyper 12:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Kslotte 16:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)