Proposal:Bench
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| The Feature Page for the approved proposal Bench is located at Tag:amenity=bench |
| Bench | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Proposed by: | pkroliko |
| Tagging: | amenity=bench |
| Applies to: | node 
|
| Definition: | A place for people to sit; allows room for several people. |
| Statistics: |
|
| Rendered as: | 
|
| Draft started: | |
| Proposed on: | 2008-03-06 |
| Vote start: | 2008-12-16 |
| Vote end: | 2008-12-30 |
Rationale
A place for people to sit; allows room for several people. Benches are used for resting for an interval of time. They can be important to people with mobility impairments (e.g. needs a cane or crutches) who need a place to rest for a couple minutes while traveling on foot. Additionally, benches are often a suitable substitute for everyday activities like eating, reading, etc. when a picnic table is not available. Pedestrian travel requiring benches is common on college campuses as well as tourist areas.
Examples
Applies to
A bench would be an Amenity node.
Tags
Optional
backrest=yes/no for people who have problems with their back this could be a useful information.
Rendering
This should probably be rendered as a symbol overlay, similar to the current toilets or recycling nodes.
See also
Proposed_features/Street_Furniture
Comments
Please comment on the talk page!
Voting
I approve this proposal. --Jttt 17:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- sadam 18:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. (tagwatch: bench used 4016 and park_bench used only 1287 times!) -- Ulfl 18:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Vrabcak 18:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- ck3d 18:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. But it shouldn't be rendered by default. --R2D2 19:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Grille Chompa 20:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Fluffhouse 20:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- Lazzko 22:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. But for purely procedural reasons: I think it's useful, but more votes are necessary to demonstrate real consensus. Shouldn't be difficult. Pray forgive me for raising the bar on this; I feel 8 very quick "yes" votes demonstrate something rather far from consensus. And it shouldn't be rendered by default, as R2D2 said. --achadwick 02:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. -- also to render this on the lowest zoom level. Robx 06:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- But I don't really see the point in having a proposal for a tag already so widely used. EdLoach 07:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. -- mainly because I think, bench=permanent should be permanent=yes. Gubaer 09:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. — essential feature! --Hubne 09:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Eimai 12:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Walley 21:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- Rorym 11:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. -- Normally I would approve, but Gubaer raise a good objection. permanent=yes would be better than bench=permanent. It could be used for a wider range of objects. I approve to all other tags but bench=permanent S.A.L. 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. permanent=yes is much better than bench=permanent --Skippern 15:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I reverted my vote on good objections up here, "permanent=yes" could be a usefull tag for other amneties. I'll vote yes if bench=permantent is replaced by permanent=yes (a separate proposal Proposed features/permanent has been made for that purpose Sletuffe 23:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Common feature, potential use is well-explained. The "permanent" matter isn't essential, and it's fairly petty grounds for opposing, since accepting amenity=bench does not require us to accept bench=permanent. "Not binding", remember? :-) Chriscf 08:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I approve amenity=bench because it is already approved by common usage (tagwatch shows more than 4000 in Europe) but I oppose the optional values, better use movable=yes/no (instead of bench=permanent) and seats=* (instead of length=*) --Phobie 11:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Bmog 12:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. -- permanent=yes is much better than bench=permanent --Meme 05:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Nop 23:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --MikeCollinson 15:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
See the approval discussion on the talk page!
Vote start/end dates were set to 2008-11-29 / 2008-12-13
backrest=yes/no
- I approve this proposal. Think this tag is ridiculous, but if voted down, will be even worse, best of several evils --Skippern 13:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. For people who have problems with their back, this could be a uselful tag. S.A.L. 21:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Sletuffe 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Skratz 12:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
bench=permanent
- I oppose this proposal. see next vote --Skippern 13:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. because permanent=yes is better S.A.L. 21:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. because some other amenity than bench could use a permanent tag Sletuffe 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. --Skratz 12:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. --Nop 23:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. see moveable --JND 17:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Suggest this is closed as "No", and further discussion to "permanent" section of Proposed features/Attributes. Chriscf 17:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Vote status: Approved, after the split mentioned below.
Motion to split
There seems to be no objection to backrest, so I suggest we add that to the approved feature, and discuss the others in a more general context, since "applicable to other things" seems to be a recurring sentiment. Chriscf 14:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to do so now, but haven't had experience with moving/splitting pages.Alexrudd 02:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)- I think I got everything. Controversial bits moved here. Alexrudd 02:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Moved the bench=permanent back here, the rest is now at Proposed features/Attributes, where I suspect the result will be swift. Chriscf 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think I got everything. Controversial bits moved here. Alexrudd 02:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)