Proposal:Artwork type=maypole

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
artwork type=maypole
Proposal status: Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by: Miche101
Tagging: artwork_type=maypole
Applies to: node, area
Definition: better tagging for maypole

Rendered as: yes
Draft started: 2021-10-20
RFC start: 2021-10-21
Vote start: 2021-11-08
Vote end: 2021-11-22


An additional tagging for Tag:man made=maypole under certain conditions.





München - Maibaum

I few regions this very elaborately decorated and stands for several years and is then renewed. Only for these specimens an additional tagging would be appropriate.

The prerequisites:

  1. The tree must be freed from the bark and branches.
  2. be provided with many signs/objects.
  3. stand for several years and are regularly renewed

All these requirements must be met. If no tree is erected for more than 3 years, this additional tagging is omitted.

Currently 860 man_made=maypole are registered. Mainly in Germany:


Simply explained, this would change as follows:







Useful combination

Further tagging like Tag:artwork_type=sculpture


[1] Maypole in Markt Schwaben

Features/Pages affected

Tag:man made=maypole supplemented by the reference to artwork_type=maypole

add new Page artwork_type=maypole


Please comment on the discussion page.


Instructions for voting
  • Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
  • Scroll down to voting and click 'Edit source'. Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:
To get this output you type Description
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.
{{vote|yes}} --~~~~ Feel free to also explain why you support proposal.
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. reason
{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~ Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no.
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. comments
{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~ If you don't want to vote but have comments. Replace comments with your comments.
Note: The ~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.
For full template documentation see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. And I do not at all understand the intensity of the opposing party: The proposal is not about replacing or deprecating existing tagging, not introducing any new concepts, but just making existing tagging a little more precise and consistent (by documenting one agreed tagging). IMHO the proposed additional tagging as tourism=artwork is well fitting:
  • Key tourism is fine because the heavily decorated maypoles (and only those are targeted by the proposal) have definitely an importance for tourists - just look how often photos are taken. This importance is ongoing in contrast to the simple maypoles which are only important during the festivities around their start_date, so it makes sense to tag the two differently.
  • Concerning distinction between the two types, I expect it will work without discussion for the vast majority of cases because also for e.g. artwork_type=graffiti, we suceed to agreeingly tell apart notable ones like at East Side Gallery from e.g. the myriad of simple tags seen on walls.
  • Value artwork is fine because maypoles are in the end a specific type of artwork_type=sculpture, just like existing values artwork_type=bust and artwork_type=statue - they would need to be removed if no refinement of sculpture was allowed/desired.
my 2 cents :-) --Schoschi (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I'm not convinced that this is more than just tagging for the renderer. Like man_made=flagpole, the man_made=* key is a good fit, and adding additional top-level tags serves no purpose beyond enforcing rendering. Having multiple top-level tags does not seem to add value in this case. If you want to give an indication of the level of decoration elaborateness, add a sub-key instead, such as maypole:decorations=sparse/elaborate or something like that. I would ask mappers from the communities that raise maypoles about their views on the need and use of such a tag. It also seems that man_made=maypole is in need of improved documentation about when it should be used at all. In particular it isn't clear now if this is a tag that should only be used for permanent installations, or also for the fixed location of seasonally placed maypoles. Clearing this up should probably be step one. --JeroenHoek (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. "stand for several years" is especially dubious. Even if tagging would be a good idea, then this specific part has no good reason anyway. If something is artwork then it would artwork from start. "be provided with many signs/objects." why say heavily carved maypole would not qualify? The issues was raised and not handled, despite that Schoschi had some good ideas that would at least partially help: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I unicorn this proposal. I do not see why you would have to vote for something here. man_made=maypole is already established, as is tourism=artwork for public art. If a specific maypole qualifies as artwork you can add the tag without any problem or voting, just based on the currently established tags. Unsure why artwork_type=maypole would have to be added, wouldn't that be repeating the same information that is already in man_made=maypole? --Dieterdreist (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Your argument of "repeating the same information" is IMHO very it allowed to change an existing vote? --Schoschi (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
In the first suggestion I wanted to change the entire key, which was rejected. And not all maypoles are so beautiful and do not stand so long and so on, because these are not art and so on but only tradition. This is the second suggestion to upgrade the key with an additional key only for which certain things apply. --Miche101 (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
"I do not see why you would have to vote for something here" it seems to be attempt to define specific rules when maypole qualifies as artwork, but I am not considering them as improvement over no specified rules as it stands. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. A maypole is typically an expression of tradition and custom, especially in parts of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria and Austria. It may be decorated more or less attractively, but it is clearly not a work of public art in the usual sense. --geow (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. IMHO tourism=artwork fits much more than man_made=* does. I consider maypoles as sort of artwork in first place, rather than part of infrastructure. --Chris2map (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Un1matr1x (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--DoubleA (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I don't think a recommendation to double-tag (some) maypoles improves the OSM data model. Multiple primary tags are generally awkward, so if there is a clearly definable property that sets these maypoles apart from the others (and I'm not convinced there is), I would prefer a sub-tag for man_made=maypole. --Tordanik 07:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I have changed my vote with the following reasoning:
    After I have talked now with friends and relatives from different parts of Germany about the "Maypole", I have come to the following result. Except one person all confirmed me that with them the designation "club tree/Vereinsbaum" is unknown, and this part with them is called "maypole". Unfortunately, as a child I was often there, where this part is not called "Maypole" and learned it so :-( . Since I see a decorated maypole as a work of art and also think the changes make sense, I agree with the proposal. My old, outdated opinion see below in italics.

    Unfortunately, I only came across this proposal during the voting phase. Otherwise I would have communicated the following considerations earlier.
    Although I find it basically okay to consider a decorated maypole as a work of art, I would like to reject this proposal as defined here.
    I have seen maypoles in many regions of Germany. Also in other areas of Europe there is this custom, perhaps even worldwide. But in the areas I know, the maypoles, as the name suggests, are put up and decorated every year in May/early summer, in Scandinavia at the summer solstice. Then in late fall they are taken down again. The next year there is then a new tree.
    But there are also trees / poles that remain standing for many years and are decorated with the flags or emblems of local associations. These are not called maypole in Germany but as club tree.
    Therefore I find it better to differentiate between maypole (lifetime < 12 months but annual repetition) and club tree (lifetime many years).
    (Since my English is very bad, I use DeepL)--Wetterauer (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Because a "man_made=maypole" is a bare pole, planned to be decorated, but currently not in use. An no, it's not a flagpole, cause it's not a flag. Adding "tourism=artwork" and "artwork_type=maypole" defines it explicit as a decorative may pole that is in use and thus a POI for tourism, too. And "artwork_type=maypole" dont must be a double-information, because the artwork could be on a bare "man_made=maypole" e.g. as accepted mural/graffiti --The-asca (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Votes cast after voting period

  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I oppose tagging "maypole" with man_made=* and artwork_type=* together. This type of double tagging leads to redundancy and clutter, and should therefore be avoided. --501ghost (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)