Talk:Proposed features/scuba diving
Please comment here on the proposal:
Hi, please don't mix underscores and - for the tags, underscores are much more common in OSM. Especially amenity=dive-center looks pretty strange and won't be well recognizable by your fellow mappers. IMHO amenity=dive_center would be better. Same applies to diving:air-fill. -- Ulfl 07:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. Actually, I wasn't aware, that I mixed it. Just changed it ...--Spielkind 07:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that and actually there is a link to this page in der 'Existing Tags' section of the proposal. Most parts of this proposal is in consensus with the existing swiss tagging scheme and was sometimes motivated by it. There are mainly some slight naming facts like e.g. 'scuba_diving' instead of just 'diving', which I tried to motivate in the proposal. Additionally I'm in contact with User:Tric and he will hopefully contribute to this proposal to get a common world-wide scheme for tagging. --Spielkind 07:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I should have searched the page, as I did not have time to read the whole proposal. I thought that as you were proposing a new sport tag you might not have been aware of this page. As you are, and are in contact with User:Tric, I'm sure that together you will evolve a useful set of tags. Bon chance. SK53 08:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Great, it gets my vote. I use it already. I agree with Spielkind that sport=scuba_diving is much clearer and specific than sport=diving . MikeCollinson 20:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hope we can get this talk and proposal moving again. Using sport=scuba_diving get's my vote. (A quick query against the API today returned 3711 nodes with sport=scuba_diving and 53 with sport=diving) I also got a suggestion that we should use name=Site Name and not scuba_diving:name=Site Name. (1982 of 3711 nodes use name, 179 use scuba_diving:name) --Usstan 14:15, 23 August 2010 (CEST)
Newbie question / comment:
Your emphasis lies on "scuba" as opposed to "diving". OK. Why then use "diving" consistently as a tag ?
a) Your approach:
+ diving:name=Blue hole
b) Why not ?
+ scuba_diving:name=Blue Hole
c) or ?
+ scuba:name=Blue Hole
I'd prefer b), because the first part of the key ("scuba_diving") is the same text as the value of the tag "sport" AND MAYBE it's easier for any search engine to find an entry. Your proposal is:
+name=Dive Center XY
The text "scuba" is not included. This MAYBE complicated for an search engine.
Once again: This is a newbie-question. Have mercy.
Stumbled over the proposal while looking for windsurfing tags. Like the structured approach of your proposal.
- Thanks for the very good point. I totally agree with you, that it's not good to mix "scuba_diving" and "diving". I just changed the proposal accordingly. --Spielkind 22:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- +1 MikeCollinson 20:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
If you have to tag
you never know if the list is complete.
so you know which languages have been checked.
--Lulu-Ann 09:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Tagging diving:type=wreck is not a good way to tag, because it ends up with diving:type=wall, wreck, cave, reef, drift, ice, deep, archeology, easy.
because one diving spot can need more than one skill.
--Lulu-Ann 09:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Dive spots / underwater diving maps
I would like that we can map also special attraction in the water. For example: a diving bell, rocks, boxes, cars, whatever is down there to make maps like: http://www.scubawiki.com/scubawiki/index.php/Image:LeybourneEast.png
- Nice map that ;) --TimSC 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
|divespot=*|| interesting spots for scuba_divers
rock -> a single rock wall -> a wall attraction -> any attractions (like artificial objects) water_tube -> a water tube entry -> Entry point (ladder, stairs, beach) freewaterentry -> Entry point for free water entry bearing -> Description how to bear buoy -> buoy (buoy, perhaps we can also use that one from the seamarks!)
|depth=*||Depth of the object|
|maxdepth=*||max depth on this point (for object, not on the ground).|
How to tag guided tours for non scuba diving / professional training?
How to tag if you can learn to be a diving teacher ?
--Lulu-Ann 09:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Some Additional Thoughts
I agree with all of Lulu-Ann's additions. I might suggest a few renamings. "scuba_diving" is unnecessarily specific. Perhaps "sport=diving" and "diving:scuba=yes". This then can be extended to "diving:free=yes", "diving:snorkeling=yes" and so on.
I prefer the term "dive_site" or "site" rather than "divespot", since it is more commonly used in my experience. (With both rename suggestions, this would be best as "diving:site=yes")
I found a few additions were needed for detailed dive site mapping, including:
- scuba_diving:artificial_poi=yes for points of interest on a dive that have been arificially added to the environment.
- scuba_diving:natural_poi=yes for points of interest that are naturally occuring. An alternative would be to use natural=life or similar.
- scuba_diving=guide_line or scuba_diving:guide_line=yes are similar to decent lines but are not necessarily vertical. They are common in low visibility dives.
- scuba_diving:platform=yes as an alternative to depths would be useful, as the depth is not always known.
- scuba_diving:hazard=yes would be some particular localised danger to be aware of, such as down currents, rip currents or extreme depths.
- scuba_diving:night=yes is suitable for night diving
For dive centres:
- scuba_diving:trips=yes for those offering (domestic) excursions.
- scuba_diving:holidays=yes for those offering guided (international) holidays or merge with scuba_diving:trips.
- scuba_diving:club=yes for local dive chapters, operating independently or with a dive centre. If the club has a distinct name, use scuba_diving:club=Scuba-addicts or whatever.
And for the free divers, clarify that a platform is the scuba variety and have a distinct one for free divers:
- diving:freediving_platform=yes a floating platform for equipment storage and resting between free dives. This almost always would be combined with diving:descent_line=yes and probably diving:scuba=no to keep those pesky scuba folks away!
Several other tags might be suggested for reef mapping but I think they are beyond the scope of this proposal. Same for depth contours. I think a proposal exists for buoys. Need a tag for typical mooring positions. Any many tags could be added for technical diving but again, its probably should be a separate proposal by someone qualified (not me). Argon fills, trimix fills, rebreather supplies? oh my!
I demoed some of these ideas in a KML export from OSM.
It's a good proposal though - I like it.--TimSC 22:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some inconsitencies under Namespace. In the table scuba_diving:divespot is used for the Name in the Example scuba_diving:name is used instead. I think we need neither. Why not use name as with every thing else? Since then scuba_diving:divespot has no value anymore, it could be fused with scuba_diving:entry so the example wouuld become: Example:
sport=scuba_diving + name=Blue hole + scuba_diving:divespot=shore + scuba_diving:type=cave + scuba_diving:descent_line=yes + scuba_diving:depth=15m + scuba_diving:maxdepth=22m
And one more problem, why are some keys for nodes only, divespot and depth also for ways and only depth for areas too. As far as I understand the proposal all these keys should be used for the same Element, so they should be all for all 3 types.--DimitriJunker 12:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Since it is unusual in OSM to have more than one value per key there should be a seperate key for each entry and type, since there are divespots where you can go both from shore and by boat, and next to most wrecks there is a reef, that´s why they sunk. So including the other proposals I would propose this:
|name||name of the divespot|
|scuba_diving:boat_entry||yes/no||is it possible to reach the divespot by boat|
|scuba_diving:shore_entry||yes/no||is it possible to reach the divespot from shore|
|scuba_diving:wall||yes/no||is there a wall?|
|scuba_diving:wreck||yes/no||is there a wreck?|
|scuba_diving:...||yes/no||... can by any other type like cave, reef, drift, archeology...|
|scuba_diving:descent_line||yes/no||defining if a buoy with a descent/ascent line is available or not|
|scuba_diving:depth||XYm||average or most interesting depth|
|scuba_diving:maxdepth||XYm||maximum depth at the divespot|
|scuba_diving:platform||XYm||availabilty of a platform for training and depth of the platform|
sport=scuba_diving + name=Blue hole + scuba_diving=divespot + scuba_diving:shore_entry=yes + scuba_diving:cave=yes + scuba_diving:descent_line=yes + scuba_diving:depth=15m + scuba_diving:maxdepth=22m
The same might aply to scuba_diving:organization and scuba_diving:spoken_languages --DimitriJunker 01:48, 14 October 2011 (BST)
In the aim of avoiding the increasing number of shop tags that would never be taken in account, it is better IMHO to tag shop=sports + sport=scuba_diving as indicated in the Tag:shop=sports page --FrViPofm 12:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Dive-Centres additional attributes
Since technical diving is growing in the diving community, I propose to use some additional attributes for Dive-Centres.
|scuba_diving:300bar||yes/no||300 bar fills available|
--Role74 17:27, 4 August 2010 (BST)