Proposed features/Basic hut

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Basic Hut
Status: Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by: Sletuffe
Tagging: tourism=basic_hut
Applies to: node, area
Definition: "A basic hut is a remote building intended to provide basic shelter and sleeping accommodation."
Drafted on:
Proposed on: 2009-08-01
RFC start: 2012-04-05
Vote start: 2012-04-20
Vote end: 2012-05-05

Proposal

"A basic hut is a remote building intended to provide basic shelter and sleeping accommodation."

Required properties :

  • Remote building found in the countryside
  • The access is usually restricted to foot, mountain bike or ski.
  • Free rent, open to the public, but may require overnight fee in some country
  • No permanent human presence
  • You will find suitable sleeping places
  • Fully closed (roof and walls)
  • No fireplace or stove
  • No reservation beforehand is possible
  • Mostly made of steel
  • Much smaller than a wilderness_hut
  • Much colder than a wilderness_hut
  • Optional owner access through restricted tracks might still be possible, also access by cablelift or helicopter.

Some examples:
Bivacco on the italian wikipedia
Biwakschachtel in the german wikipedia

This proposal is part of a set of tags for Proposed features/wilderness_mountain_buildings

Rationale

This tag is used 99 times at 2012-04-01 07:59 UTC

Examples

Tags

Applies to nodes or area (forming the building outlines)

Key Value Discussion
tourism basic_hut The main tag

Additional tags to discribe the equipment

You can increase knowlege of the location with optional tags.

Key Value Discussion
mattress yes/no Are mattress available

Other useful generic tags :

  • ele=* elevation
  • name=* name
  • capacity=* sleeping capacity
  • fee=yes require overnight fee
  • description=* fill more information with text
  • operator=* typically used to indicate huts owned or maintained by a specific organisation. E.g.,

[Mountain Bothy Association], [Österreichischer Alpenverein], administration of forest or national parks.

Applies to

Applies to nodes or area (forming the building outlines)

Rendering

Basic hut blue p20.svg or Basic hut red p20.svg or Basicflat red 32.png

Features/Pages affected

While amenity=shelter can be used for any kind of shelter also not man-made, tourism=basic_hut has a specific meaning.

Proposed_features/Wilderness_hut
Proposed_features/Lean_to

Comments

See talk page

Voting

  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. -- You read it well, I'm voting no to my own proposal, because I think Proposed_features/Wilderness_hut is too close to this one and should cover the cases described on this proposal (why not an additionnal tag)

sletuffe 15:42, 20 April 2012 (BST)

Like capacity=4, made_of=steel, fireplace=no,drinking_water=no added to tourism=wilderness_hut sletuffe 15:25, 23 April 2012 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Rudolf 16:31, 20 April 2012 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. FedericoCozzi 18:01, 20 April 2012 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Pedja 19:26, 20 April 2012 (CET)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Geri-oc 18:37, 20 April 2012 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Maxbe 18:42, 20 April 2012 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Unless the "Fireplace or stove for cooking and heating" requirement in Proposed_features/Wilderness_hut is removed and relative information provided with a dedicated tag. --Kaitu 19:05, 20 April 2012 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. A generic hut with tags like cooking=yes/no, full_serviced=yes/no, shelter_only=yes/no/additional would be better, but these proposals should work, but they are restricted to later extensions. --Fabi2 19:39, 20 April 2012 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Kjon 12:29, 21 April 2012 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. See comment by sletuffe. The difference to tourism=wilderness_hut is not properly specified. Alternatively, the existing amenity=shelter can be used for this, maybe together with shelter_type=bivouac. You can also specify the building type with something like building=box/hut/cabin/etc. or material=metal/stone/wood/etc. --Fkv 14:16, 22 April 2012 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I think the smaller shelters/huts (below alpine_hut) should be tagged as amenity=shelter and refined with attributes (a'la fireplace=yes/no), the proposed tags are neither really descriptive. --SKald 18:58, 22 April 2012 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Same opinion as SKald, the Biwakschachtel is a special form of a shelter with prefabricated components, there exists also small shelters made of wood/stones used in case of emergency (not restricted to the alps). --Marmoti 21:42, 22 April 2012 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Same reasons as above. All these difference variations of "shelter" are confusing to the mapper. Use "amemity=shelter" and add attributes to specify the details (whether it is open or fully closed, got a fireplace etc). --polderrunner 21:33, 22 April 2012 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Same reasons as above (just variations of "shelter", use "amemity=shelter" and add attributes to specify the details) -- Fichtennadel 07:58, 23 April 2012 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Extremecarver 08:04, 23 April 2012 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Proposed_features/Wilderness_hut is a better alternative --Jorisbens 08:23, 23 April 2012 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal., see user Fkv, SKald, Polderrunner, ... - a more general approach would be good here, like they explained. Quarksteilchen 18:03, 23 April 2012 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal., same as above. A general and meaningful tag is worth more than a thousand specialized tags, that nobody but a handful of specialists worldwide know. Lets stick to the principle: a general tag and attributes to refine it. --BorisC 23:43, 23 April 2012 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. -- Gian Mario Navillod 11:59, 24 April 2012 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I think that amenity=shelter shouldn't be used for wilderness buildings -- Gomatteo 12:40, 24 April 2012 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. use amenity=wilderness_hut + hut_type=basic--Javiersanp 18:00, 29 April 2012 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Seem to be the same as tourism=alpine_hut--R-michael 15:58, 2 May 2012 (BST)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I oppose because this isn't sufficiently different from wilderness_hut. The only difference seems to be the absence of a fireplace and that's not enough to make it a separate entity. --Kfj 11:03, 4 May 2012 (BST)

Voting result

Voting is closed. 10 users voted "yes", 13 user voted "no". Proposal has reached the minimum amount of 15 votes with a majority disapproval.

3 user suggest to use tourism=wilderness_hut. 7 user suggest to use amenity=shelter. 1 user suggests to use tourism=alpine_hut.

Please contribute at Talk:Proposed_features/Basic_hut#Post_voting_usage.