Talk:Proposed features/Alpine hut
Version 2 comments
I'm on for a clean up, more explicit properties of what an alpine hut is for the osm usage. (rendering proposition is kept aside because disturb the tagging process by focusing on map representation) Comments welcome Sletuffe 14:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Remaining points that could be discussed (taken from old comments):
- I vote for a new key called refuge with values like refuge=shelter, refuge=alpine_hut, refuge=bothy, refuge=biwakschachtel and the like.
- I think it is easier to separate given the current usage of alpine_hut
A question someone might ask : Where does mountains start and stop in this definition ? Some hotels do exist in mountains are they alpine hut ?
I propose another distinction properties : - Access to a mountain hut it not possible with a motorcar
Taken from the french legal definition 
"A refuge is a facility open to the public in isolated mountain site, kept or not kept. Its characteristics are defined by decree."
I'll be against the "kept ot not kept" part of the definition as I want to propose other tags for bothy/wilderness hut/...
But the idea behing "isolated" looks good to me to make it distinct from a hotel. Sletuffe 14:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- The refuge key sounds better to me than alpine_hut. I miss a flag if it is possible to sleep there or if the alpine hut only serves meals. --WanMil 16:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
In Austria (and I'm sure in other countries too) we have huts which are only open and managed in the summer, while in the winter they have only small winter room opened which can be used as a shelter if needed. What about a key to state the availability of such winter refuges? --Uhu01 16:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have two ideas :
- we create a key like : winter_room=yes/no
- we superpose two nodes (one for the managed alpine hut, one for the winter room) the second with a key like this Proposed_features/Wilderness_hut
- Solution 1 is easy, but solution 2 makes it possible to have independant tags (such as mattress, fire place, capacity, cooking place, etc.)
Or maybe a third solution ? sletuffe 03:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the "refuge" idea is sound. These buildings have different classifications in different countries. In italy I would use only 2 tags, one for the alpine_hut as here defined and another for any other building that's free, fully closed, always open. Also, the "winter_room" idea is limiting but better than nothing. Probably best to superpose the nodes. --Snaggy89 22:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
winter room in alpine_hut
I'm also missing additional tag for alpine hut to indicate that it has winter room. Which means that off season, when mountain hut is closed, you can still use it as shelter, but it is basically reduced to bothy. I guess tagging it with shelter=yes would be appropriate. --Blaz 06:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Very good point. I would probably propose two different options to deal with that :
- Tag it as another point (with wilderness_hut) and it's own tags, even if only 10m aside from the alpine_hut, and even if it is in the same building (but different rooms)
- Tag it as winter_shelter=yes or shelter=yes (but I find this one not very clear)
- I think the 1) make more sense because if someone added mastress=yes/fireplace=yes/capacity=10, how do we know to what room they belong to ? Sletuffe 11:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)