Proposal talk:Sauna

Public / Private

It would be good to find some simple and easily queryable way to separate private saunas and those you can hire. Private saunas are rather useless as navigator POIs, for example. -JRA

I did not intend this feature for privates saunas. If we start to tag different kinds of private buildings, then we have also to tag garages, tool sheds, etc. That means, we have to enter a private land and look into the windows to find out whether the builing is a tool shed or a sauna or whatever.

I meant the key "public/private" in this way:

• public saunas: they are public like swimming halls. You can go there whenever you want and pay an entrance fee.
• private saunas: they belong to a person or to an organisation. You can hire it if you know whom you have to ask.

OK, maybe better words may be chosen. --Plenz 14:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was probably thinking of building=sauna. For tagging the activity, your suggestion leisure:sauna feels good but amenity:sauna might do as well. And public is understandable description for swimming hall saunas and a few "real" public saunas. Is it then access=public or sauna=public or what? Some other word than private might be better for the saunas which are hired on demand. -JRA

"public/private" doesn't sound good. Maybe something like "somekey=public" and "somekey=rentable". Key access is already taken by road access, so some better key is needed. --Kslotte 16:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What about "property=public" and "property=rentable"? --Kslotte 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

At the top of Key:access, it says "Use access tags to describe the allowed or preferred level of access along a footpath, road or any other kind of way element." It's in man_made=water_tower and amenity=parking and Proposed features/Golf course and elsewhere, it's suitable here. For something rentable, fee=* would be appropriate. --goldfndr 08:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it's strictly along a way element then it arguably should not be used with man_made=water_tower and amenity=parking and Proposed features/Golf course. But on the other hand, Tagwatch shows that it is frequently used with amenity=*. --goldfndr 08:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As according to the access definition it won't be allowed. Sauna is a node or area element, not a way element. We need some type "access"-like types for amenity and leisure. Parking is fine because you access with car (or with some else vehicle). But the man_made=water_tower and Proposed features/Golf course are in same category as sauna. What about "somekey=free/rentable/fee/membership"?--Kslotte 09:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Something related: Proposed_features/Price_tags --Kslotte 09:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Access keys are already used on node elements, too, for example on [Key:barrier barriers], and parking areas. It's just a bit outdated sentence; much of the documentation on the wiki is lagging behind of what's implemented. Alv 16:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's assume that using the access key is the correct to use. Then access=yes/private/permissive/no should be used the same way as man_made=water_tower. Permissive is then meant for saunas that can be rented. Comments? --Kslotte 17:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So access usage as following ...

access=yes for public saunas where you pay fee (or free in rare cases) to visit

access=permissive for saunas that you need to pay rent for usage

--Kslotte 15:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think access=public would be better than just access=yes. --Skyper 20:15, 28 June 2011 (BST)

Tag:amenity=sauna

There exist a tag amenity for sauna visible on the Map Features page. Aren't these same? --Kslotte 15:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

amenity=sauna beats leisure=sauna on uses and seams to be somewhat established. Therefore it was entered in Map Features.

But a sauna is more a leisure then an amenity. The ~1000 saunas already mapped could be an import or a single good mapper. It is easy to change the tags. I say we fix up this proposal and sends out an RFC before it gets out of hands. Gnonthgol 23:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"But a sauna is more a leisure then an amenity." I fully agree. --Kslotte 11:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. And public/private is not a precise tag in this case. --Jstein 13:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

For me a public sauna is as much amenity as pub, restaurent or theatre. Both taggings would do. --JRA 07:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, a sauna is more an amenity than a leisure! Isn't it funny how we end up strangling ourselves with these bogus categorizations and end up discussiong about bogus "fixes" to them here and there (because of some very subjective personal opinions, obviously). I don't really care too much though but I see very little reason to change my use of Tag:amenity=sauna, especially given the entire lack of reasoning by those who oppose it (other than just indicating their personal preference). :-P Ij (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)