Proposal:Bench: Tag capacity, even if no separation

Bench: Tag capacity, even if no separation
Proposal status:	Draft (under way)
Proposed by:	Martianfreeloader
Tagging:	amenity=bench Data item
Applies to:
Definition:	It is correct to tag the capacity of a bench, even if there is no functional separation into individual seats.
Statistics:
Draft started:	2022-10-05
RFC start:	2022-10-05

Proposal

This proposal seeks to approve this statement:

"It is correct to tag the capacity of a bench, even if there is no functional separation into individual seats. If there is no functional or visible separation between individual seats, it is up to the mapper to judge how many (average adult) people can comfortably sit on the bench at a time."

It is assumed that capacity estimates between different mappers will vary by no more than 1 in most cases; or less than 25% for benches with capacity >4.

This concerns elements that are tagged with amenity=bench.

Rationale

Purpose

The purpose is to find out whether there is a community consensus (>75%) in either direction of this question.

There are two opposing opinions among mappers:

• It is correct to tag the capacity of a bench, even if there is no functional separation into individual seats. (this proposal)
• If the bench has no functional separation into individual seats, then the capacity should not be tagged. (the opposing proposal)

Assumptions

This proposal assumes consensus on this statement:

"It is correct to tag the capacity of a bench which is functionally separated into seats."

If you disagree with this statement, please raise this in the discussion.

seats=* or capacity=* ?

This proposal does not make a statement whether the capacity should be tagged using seats=* (current practice) or capacity=*. This may be subject to future proposal.

Outlook

As a proposal needs support of 75% of the voters, there are 3 plausible scenarios:

Voting scenarios

Scenario	Consequence	Way further
Scenario A: This proposal gets approved.	Current practice approved	Discuss seats=*, capacity=* and length=*
Scenario B: The opposite proposal gets approved.	Current tagging of many benches deemed outdated	On benches without separation, only length is encouraged
Scenario C: None of the proposals gets approved	Situation remains unclear	Example

The author expects that some mappers will consider Scenario C the least favourable. Voting for B will thus start after voting for A has finished.

Pros and cons

Mapping capacity on benches without seat separation

	Arguments for this proposal	Arguments for the opposing proposal
Relevance	It's one of the main properties that a bench user is interested in (like backrest=* and material=*).
Objectivity	There is precedent of a number of other semi-objective tags on OSM. They have a similar conflict of high usefulness vs. some lack of objectivity. (smoothness=*, trail_visibility=*, sac_scale=*, climbing:grade:uiaa=*, ...) Capacity estimates between different mappers will vary by no more than 1 in most cases; or less than 25% for benches with capacity >4.	Not a fully objective measure: Different mappers may have different estimates.
Use length instead	For most bench users, capacity is much easier to digest than length=* ("What does that mean for my purposes?"). Using only length=* is problematic. If there are separations, then the conversion from length=* to capacity may fail. The length of the bench can still be mapped alongside the capacity, using length=* if the mapper believes this is useful.	Use length=* instead. It's the objective measure.

The author of the proposal assumes that capacity estimates between different mappers will vary by no more than 1 in most cases; or less than 25% for benches with capacity >4. For the benches shown below, the author has noted their estimates on how many average adults can comfortably sit on it a the same time. Feel free to leave a comment on the discussion page if your estimate would have been off by more than 1.

• 

  Bench A: 3

• 

  Bench B: 3

• 

  Bench C: 2

• 

  Bench D: 2

• 

  Bench E: 3

• 

  Bench F: 5 each

• 

  Bench G: 4

Examples

Picture	Description	Tagging if this proposal gets approved	Tagging if the opposing proposal gets accepted
	A bench without any separation into seats	amenity=bench + seats=3 or amenity=bench + capacity=3	amenity=bench seats=3 capacity=3
	A bench that is functionally separated into 4 seats	amenity=bench + seats=4 or amenity=bench + capacity=4 (seats or capacity to be discussed later; not now)	amenity=bench + seats=4 or amenity=bench + capacity=4 (seats or capacity to be discussed later; not now)
	Edge case: A bench that is only visibly separated into individual seats	amenity=bench + seats=2 or amenity=bench + capacity=2	amenity=bench seats=2 capacity=2 (Separation not functional, only visible)

Features/Pages affected

• amenity=bench

External discussions

• tagging mailing list Sep/Oct 2022

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page. For simplicity, discussion of this proposal and its opposing proposal should both take place on the discussion page of this proposal.