Talk:Proposed features/aerialway=zip line

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I think this makes sense: rendered on a map it will look like a wire, and viewed from above in real life it looks like wire. Brycenesbitt 22:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

playground vs. "serious" use

You write: "There is also a proposal to tag it as playground=zipwire in Proposed features/Playground Equipment, but I think aerialway=zip_line is more generic." IMHO you should propose your tag specifically for the trasport device (man and/or material) and recommend playground=* for the ones on playgrounds. Why should they get the same tag? --Dieterdreist 15:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a big difference that would require a different tag for both uses? A common tag combined with weight and other restrictions may be more widely usable. RicoZ (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a significant difference, which is that one is used for functional purposes and the other is a toy. A renderer might want to treat them differently. You suggest tagging them with max_age, access restriction and technical descriptions, but in my experience, trying to reconstruct a clear semantic difference from several vague tags isn't usually a successful approach in tagging.
While you point out some valid problems (especially toy ziplines outside playgrounds), I'm not convinced that we should use the same tag for these. There's also the issue that the playground tag fits in neatly with other similar tags, and that it's used more often than the amennity tag. --Tordanik 14:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Direction arbitrary?

Doesn't make sense given that most zip lines are gravity propelled? RicoZ (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Changed to imply oneway=yes by default. RicoZ (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
if oneway=yes is implied, then direction of the way matters as it will depict the zip_line usage direction, May I suggest this change : [1] to explicitly write that direction of the way matters ? sletuffe (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Forest cableways

The current proposal includes the transport of material (whereas the wikipedia definition of zip-line seems to focus on the transport of people). I wonder if zip-line would be a better fit than aerialway=goods for those permanent cableways propelled by gravity which are used in alpine environments, mainly for cable logging? --Kaitu (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably. "aerialway=goods" is an unfortunate legacy value in my eyes - most (all?) other aerialway values are describing the aerialway technology while "goods" is inconsistent with this and describes an access restriction. Unfortunate because many types of aerialways can be used to transport goods.RicoZ (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually most aerialway=goods have different properties to say aerialway=cable_car: in particular I dont think they have to implement safety features associated with passenger lifts. So although it appears to be an access restriction, it broadly corresponds to a distinct type of lift. SK53 (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Note that the definition of aerialway=goods is "A cable/wire supported lift for goods. Passenger transport is usually not allowed. " which is very vague concerning the transport of persons. They may (and in practice often do) allow transport of staff for example. Access tags are more suited to accurately describe this and chances are they are better supported by data consumers than arbitrary and vague aerialways values. RicoZ (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
For cable logging I think the best fit would be access=forestry+feet=no RicoZ (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)