These are some suggestions made before this tag was adopted into Map Features:
- I suggest using cuisine=<value> rather than style=<value> so that it is more obvious what the tag is referring to. MikeCollinson 17:01, 7 June 2007 (BST)
- changed that, looks better Frank 22:10, 7 June 2007 (BST)
- FYI, I've been experimentally using a cuisine tag in mapping in Australia, Philippines and UK. I find that I either tag an ethnicity: thai, french, chinese, italian, indian, vietnamese, korean, japanese being the main ones or a particular food type: noodles, fish_and_chips, pie, sandwich, pizza, pasta. I suspect that exact tagging should be left to local country requirements, "chinese" for example, won't make much sense in Taiwan where cantonese, peking etc might be more appropriate. MikeCollinson 17:01, 7 June 2007 (BST)
- good idea. I was just adding a couple of restaurants today and was missing exactly this tag (cuisine)! The price needs more differentiation, as expensive and really expensive is quite a difference :-) --Cdaller 23:28, 10 July 2007 (BST)
- I'd also like to see something like provenience=italian, provenience=greek etc. to distinguish restaurant. My main interest is to be able to extract them as POIs in different categories. --SlowRider 14:14, 16 September 2007 (BST)
- Good idea. In some rare cases a restaurant or fast food restaurant offers two or three cuisines. Then a semicolon separated value list should be used. Toralf 10:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Proposal : Ices for ice cream, sorbets etc.. ShakespeareFan00 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- In germany we have small fast food restaurant to which none of the existing values fit. The closest value would be friture but I would appreciate if an international name for it could be introduced like fries. Burger doesn't really fit, because the fewest of these small fast food restaurants offer burgers. Peperkorn --Peperkorn 07:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Und wenn Du mal gesagt hättest, wovon Du redest, dann hättest Du schon eine Antwort bekommen. --Lulu-Ann 21:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Limit to english types of cuisine
I'm on the way to parse the planet with restaurant, fast-food, pub, etc. and I found about 800 types of cuisine. Some of them are local/regional type, some are "national" and some are really by type (pizza, burgers...). While keeping the list open (of course), I suggest to reduce to "english adjectives" words to qualify this field. --Marc 21:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you are going to have brazilian restaurants on that list, than the region names capixaba, baiana, mineira and gaucho is needed, as these regions serve very different food, and restaurants for these regions are found through all of Brazil. Outside of Brazil I guess they all come under the term "brazilian". Many of these restaurants in Brazil are only tagged regional, something that not really marks the difference between the capixaba and mineira restaurants, side by side. --Skippern 01:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Of course for local food types, the only way to give a type is to use the local name of cuisine, this is also available for regional food. --Marc 08:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
cuisine also for amenity=cafe
I suggest to use cuisine also for cafes, like it was discussed on the proposal (but it's not shown in Map Features now).
Most needed tags are: coffee_shop (that's the default), tea or tea_house, ice_cream, bagel, donut, cake (for sweets). --Walter 18:12 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Coffee_shop is a special term in the Netherlands, which has only sparse relation to coffee. I propose to use coffee, tee and your other suggestions. --EvanE 18:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- seafood is used more than sea_food, according to Tagwatch. English dictionary confirms that it is a single, non-hyphenated word.
- Cantonese is normally transliterated with a leading "C", not a "K". Tagwatch confirms no usage of Kantonese or kantonese.
AM909 22:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- steakhouse instead of steak_house; most places spell it the first way, and it is listed as a word in the dictionary
BigPeteB 05:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
What do you call it?
I'd like to propose the following:
- bar&grill - typically burgers, steaks, and the like, with a few other menu choices for variety. Usually has full bar and sometimes TVs showing sports. Most are chain restaurants (T.G.I. Friday's, Applebees, O'Charley's, Chili's, etc)
I'm not sure what to call it, though. "Bar & grill" is the most common name, although not very descriptive (but then the restaurants themselves are usually pretty generic).
We could probably also call it "casual". If you take every "casual restaurant", remove the ones that are specific enough to get another value, everything you'd be left with would be these bar & grill places. BigPeteB 05:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think we should have a "&" in any value... this might mess up urls. --Lulu-Ann 14:52, 2 September 2011 (BST)
I'd like to add cuisine=canteen to the list. The distinguishing feature of canteen food is usually not some specific "type" or ethnicity, but a limited choice of menus, changing daily (often with a rotation period of a few weeks), and, unfortunately, also a "specific" food quality (especially at university canteens, also dubbed "mensa" in some countries); so a user seeing a "canteen" tag would know what to expect. Any opinions on that?-- Oli-Wan 11:16, 25 October 2010 (BST)
- This fit's to the restaurant=* (See talk of amenity=restaurant) --Lulu-Ann 14:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- See also lunch=* for a menu offering that has a weekly rotation. We usually do not map subjective qualities of things, see stars=*. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Awards_and_ratings Bkil (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
to account for the identification of religious requirements for the preparation of food, I recommend the inclusion of the key
- diet:halal=yes/only/no see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal#Food) and
- diet:kosher=yes/only/no see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher).
Feel free to add other keys. -- User 5359 09:43, 30 August 2011 (BST)
Missing cuisine types
- cuisine=teriaki or something like that, not sure actually how to spell it, as I have seen varios spellings, and not entirely sure if this is to be sorted as food type or etnicity or regional. I just know that if there is one close when I am travelling with my familly, I would drop by so my wife could experience a real Teriaki grill :) --Skippern (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- cuisine=tarte_flambee. Maybe this is not the british spelling. This is analog to cuisine=pizza. Some Salads or soups maybe also served.
- Also Please add cuisine=soul food for Southern United States and African-American cooking and cuisine=cajun/creole for food from Louisiana. Koavf (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest to use cuisine=flammenkuche, which is the original and official name of tarte flambée. --Rouelibre (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
adding the possibility of separating the values via semicolon to the wiki
I would explicitly state this possibility in the wiki if this is ok!? As there are restaurants that offer different kinds of cuisine this seems to be very useful to me. --Mojo Dodo (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I am also interested in multi-values for cuisine. does it exist?
- punctuation separated values?
- create as many key:cuisine as values?
- +1 to use this. Or one of the alternatives https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator#Alternatives (it requires some kind of consensus to have such a change)
- But at least this page should be explicit that we can have multiple values. Tuxayo (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Tex Mex food
How do you tag a place where they serve Tex Mex food? Most Mexican restaurants in the US are actually Tex Mex restaurants. (See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tex-Mex ) --ALE! (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Should we add the "grill" value?
It's use 600 times https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=cuisine#values
Mass convert vegan and vegetarian values
According to taginfo, there are ~2500 elements with
cuisine=vegan. These values are deprecated and should use a
diet: tag instead.
(Also, this prevents displaying these elements in application like OpenVegeMap.)
I agree, it will improve the quality of services like OpenVegeMap. These elements should be retagged with diet:vegetarian=only and diet:vegan=only to avoid having to go through this process manually and maybe a
FIXME tag with the mention :
"This place was edited to replace the deprecated
diet:vegan=only, please confirm if all the options are vegan or change the tag value to
and the same message with <vegetarian> instead of <vegan> for the other part of the batch --Rouelibre (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
It is possible, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct Should be doable with JOSM, but needs acceptance from a community Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree. Vegetarian restaurants are a distinct style of restaurant (vegan very much less so) and quite distinct from a a generic I can get vegetarian food here which is what "diet:vegetarian" says. Just because the dietary requirements and the style of restaurant are aligned does not mean that the tags mean exactly the same thing. For instance in Paris in the 1970s/1980s/1990s finding places which did diet:vegetarian largely meant a few specific cuisines perhaps with a limited number of suitable menu items (e.g., pizza, greek, mexican, indian), and actual restaurants with a full vegetarian meny were very few & far between & specialised (I had a friend who's brother owned one). SK53 (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Separate cuisine from food type
Of the established values for this tag, many are cuisines (that is, cultural cuisines, typically corresponding to geographies or ethnicities) while many others are categories of dishes that transcend cuisines. This creates consistency problems as well as a potential for bias against certain cultures.
For example, Sbarro is most commonly tagged cuisine=pizza based on food type, despite their Italian tricolor branding. By contrast, Taco Bell is most commonly tagged cuisine=mexican, a cultural cuisine tag, while this wiki page recommends a much less common cuisine=tex-mex, even though neither Texas nor Mexico figure prominently in their branding (or, frankly, their fare).
Consistency aside, the dual purpose of the cuisine=* tag means some cuisines are subordinated to others. (One proposal above would do so explicitly.) The "Type of food" and "Type of dessert" sections currently make plenty of distinctions between European and American dishes but few distinctions between the dishes of other cultures.
In Vietnam, should the vast majority of restaurants be cuisine=vietnamese, or should mappers there invent new values for the major distinctions in that market? If a restaurant in Vietnam is tagged, say, cuisine=broken_rice because it specializes in cơm tấm, shouldn't a restaurant with a similar menu in the U.S. be tagged cuisine=broken_rice as well?
One possibility would be to say that cuisine=* should be based on the distinctions in each country, ignoring consistency between similar menus in different countries. But what happens in ethnic enclaves that are also frequented by the general population? Most Americans would expect the cơm tấm restaurant to come up in a search for "Vietnamese restaurants", but Vietnamese-Americans might perform a more specific search, because the restaurant is located in a neighborhood chock full of Vietnamese restaurants. Right next door might be a Vietnamese sandwich shop. Two adjacent Vietnamese restaurants might specialize in soups that, to the ethnic community, might be considered completely unrelated (such as phở versus bánh canh).
So another possibility would be to expect ethnic restaurants to always be tagged with two
cuisines: a type of food and a culture. But at that point, why not introduce separate keys for the two kinds of
cuisines? This post from 2015 proposes culture=*. Similarly, cuisine:region=* was suggested in OSMUS Slack, though it would be a poor fit for cuisines that aren't tied to a specific region, like cuisine=jewish. Alternatively, we could shunt the food-type values over to a new key, perhaps food_type=*, dish=*, or food=* (by analogy with drink=*). We could then deprecate the food-type values of cuisine=* and limit the key to cultural cuisines, reflecting the conventional meaning of "cuisine" outside OSM.
- Hhhmmm, tough questions. To me there should be a difference in tagging between the cuisine of a restaurant (American) and the ingredient of the main dish served there (burger, or maybe even something like pancakes or tacos. Or for a great example see the entry for "friture"). There's clearly a need for it and it would allow for another level of categorization if nothing else. But it shouldn't then lead to micro-tagging of every style of food or ingredient a place serves or doesn't (there's kind of a related argument going on in the Talk:Tag:shop=car page about how tagging every possibility of what a "car shop" can or doesn't provide with a yes or no key is tedious and micro-tagging. Personally I'm extremely against that type of tagging). Really, there's three things here that could have their own tags whatever we go with cuisine or region or whatever (I.E. American), style (I.E. burger), and ingredient (meat? I really don't know. There's probably a better example for a different style of food, but you get my point).
- As a side to that, there's also diet:, which I was surprised to see "vegan" a part of. It could be either a diet choice if the its a normal restaurant that has a vegan side menu or a category of cuisine if its solely a vegan restaurant (where meat eaters like me go sometimes to try something new and to feel hip). --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm also wary of the slippery slope where mappers end up having to tag each item on the menu. In my opinion, the goal should be a holistic categorization, suitable for geocoders that might let the user enter a cuisine or pick from a selection, and also suitable for renderers that might give certain cuisines or food types their own icons. I increasingly think a new key should answer "what kind of dishes does the restaurant specialize in?" (emphasis on "specialize") and cuisine=* should answer "what culture inspired these dishes?" It's also worth noting that cuisine=* is currently tagged on hundreds of shop=supermarket features, where food-type values would make little sense. (A pizza-and-ice-cream supermarket would delight any child, incidentally.) – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Minh Nguyen: So I put some thought into this and I really like the idea of going with the food tag. Since its already established with food=yes and goes with drink=*. So its more intuitive. The I think it should be done though is with a food:*=* tagging style. Where the first * is the type of food and then =* refines it. As an example the current cuisine=barbecue tag would become food:barbecue=chicken (or whatever meat it is), cuisine=noodle could become food:noodle=ramen. It would also work well for something like cuisine=desert, which could become food:desert=donut or food:desert=cookie. As it is desert doesn't fit well as a cuisine tag in my opinion. There's a lot of tags that doing it this way would make redundant also. So I think it would ultimately help reduce the number of food related tags overall. Plus then we could introduce more key values for more specific things, like currently there's a bunch of bread styles that don't have tags for them that id like to add, but they don't qualify as cuisine in my opinion. Tags like cuisine=wings that couldn't be classified well with a food:* tag could just be either food=wings or maybe food:barbecue=wings (there's probably better examples).
- Also, freeing up the cuisine tag just for regions would help make it easier to add more specific regions to the list. There's a lot of places that either aren't on the list, but still have a lot of tag usage (like cuisine=german) or there's sub-regional food that could use tags. Eventually when there's a lot of regions it could be further refined to a similar tagging scheme to food. With something like cuisine:american=creole or cuisine:german=bavarian. I don't think other tags like culture or region will work in these situations. As I don't think sub regions are cultures necessarily (for example Bavarian is more German then in its own distinct culture) and its not how people are tagging them in the first place. Culture only has 82 uses and regional only has 106, despite both being around for a fairly long time. Keeping food region under the cuisine tag also is a lot less re-tagging work. Plus, ultimately I feel like its unnecessary to move it. Whereas food badly needs its own tagging scheme.
- or an alternative is something like dish=barbecue + food=chicken or dish=noodle + food=ramen. That would work to and allow for shorter tagging and not necessarily needing a food type key, but it could also possibly lead to people over tagging everything with multiple food=* tags. Which I don't want to see. I think either scheme is an improvement from how it currently is though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Anyone care if juice is added as a cuisine. I noticed it's not listed, but it has 400ish uses and is being used as a cuisine key in iD Editor. Usage aside, I think it makes sense for juice bars and other things like that. So it would be worth adding IMHO. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Adamant1:: If you like, you can take a look at my juice bar proposal if you’re interested :). — EzekielT (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I actually stumbled on it right after asking here about cuisine=juice. It looks like a good proposal. Feel free to ping me when you do a vote on it and I won't request it be deleted in the meantime ;) What do you think about adding juice to the cuisine list while we wait for it to get adopted though? I think it might be useful even if your tag gets accepted. Either one is better then something like amenity=bar + drink:juice=yes for these types of things. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Anyone object to hot_dog being added to the list? It has roughly 184 uses with hot_dog, hot_dogs, Hot_Dogs, and Hot_dogs combined. a good portion of the entries are hot_dog. I'd like that to be the default that the other entries are unified under. I'm aware that the entry for sausage suggests it can be used for hot dogs, but that's clearly not whats happening and to me they are different enough types of food for their own entries anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- In Hungary, these two are completely different. Cooked/fried sausages ("sült kolbász") are firm and grainy and may contain rice and other stuff, purchased and stored smoked and raw, made in a pan or in the oven, are high in fat, they are eaten with bread, cabbage and pickles, mashed potatoes or even with chips. Hot dog meat is Vienna sausage (so called "virsli") that is soft, smooth and gelatin-like, and cooked in water, then wrap it up in a kifli. See classification here. It is very common to eat cooked/fried sausages at a brick and mortar butcher, while finding places selling hot dogs is much more difficult - their vendors usually operate from mobile vans around events. -Bkil (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Templates for Food and Dessert
Hi, new contributor here, I've been translating the cuisine key and I can't understand the reason behind the need for two templates. Wouldn't it be more logical for them to be in one big "Food" template instead of a "Food" and "Dessert with Apetizers" ? --lejun (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Purpose of tables
@Rtfm: (but also anyone else) is the purpose of the tables to be an exhaustive list of every single kind of food and cuisine out there even ones with zero uses in OSM? Or is the purpose of the tables to highlight "widely" used food and cuisine tags only? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am dubious about adding values that have 0 uses. I would not restrict it to solely to very popular ones but I support removal of ones that are completely unused Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'd say the above question should be discussed in a wider format (I don't necessarily mean the mailing list, but a "publicly accessible" place like a new page about "OSM Wiki documentation philosophies / standards"). You could probably create a page with your point of view, then promote it on the mailing list. Generally I think everything which is in wide use in "real life" should be documented, as otherwise everyone invents a new way to tag it, which leads to a big mess (and later to the argumentation that one which is probably less practicable but in wider use is more "established", which then avoids a consolidation). By the way, why got "fish and chips" an own tag, while fish is consumed all over the world, just with different side dishes like couscous, fufu, injera and others (also as filling in empanada, not as a sweet...). Is there probably some old colonialism left as OSM originated in the UK ? rtfm Rtfm (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nah, I'm good. Also, I'm extremely sick of your repeated hypocrisy about everything. You go off about how doing things through "channels" is bad and refuse to discuss anything things you want to do, but then when someone wants to do something you disagree with your answer is always "take it to the mailing list." I'm good with that one sided none sense. Anyway, it's already been discussed and mostly agreed on, except by you apparently, that policy related to the wiki is decided here. There is no "wiki mailing list" to take things to and for good reason. Ultimately, you got decided against and your wrong here. Move on and accept it. It's ridiculous anyway to treat a tagging table as an exhaustive list of every kind of food or cuisine out there. It wouldn't be manageable after a certain point. It hardly is now. There's nothing wrong with having inclusion/exclusion standards. Making the standard that we don't include things that are in the low or no numbers is perfectly reasonable. There's zero benefit at all to including everything under the sun just for the sake of it. Everyone except you would agree. If you don't like it create a page about it, take it up in the mailing list, blah blah blah blah. Like I said before, go do a mapping party so fufu or whatever cuisine you to be included gets the tagging numbers to justify adding them. I'm totally fine with that. Until then though, I'm deleting your zero (almost zero) use entries. If you revert me again I'll report you to an admin. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- "I'd say the above question should be discussed in a wider format" - feel free to start such discussion and link to it here. ""publicly accessible" place" - this talk page is publicly accessible. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Do you think I should extend this one or create another with more topics ? "Remember that OpenStreetMap does not have any content restrictions on tags that can be assigned to nodes, ways or areas. You can use any tags you like, but please document them here on the OpenStreetMap wiki, even if self-explanatory." Any proposal about the bullet points ? rtfm Rtfm (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is a chicken and egg problem. I agree that we should not list every possible food found in the dictionary, but if certain kinds are anticipated to be very common, it can be an advantage if a canonical writing, explanation and photo is available. When I last extended the table with dozens of entries, I went through taginfo and made sure to include ones that are used very often (and did some regularization along the way as well). I then did add a few related items based on some typical menu items, though, so I'm a little guilty here. We haven't yet started mass mapping of cukrászda yet around the country, but after we do, that should bump many kinds of desserts found in Central Europe for example. I can't speak for other nationalities. -Bkil (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
In the last edit, User:TheAdventurer64 inlined the separate pages with the visual editor. I haven't checked the huge diff, so I'm not sure what changed. The separate pages had remained in place. What is the goal and what are the steps to get there? I think originally the idea behind partitioning this huge page into smaller ones was to improve load time and caching, but I can't be sure. -Bkil (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)