From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please add your opinion and experience here


This is just an idea: if meals can not be eaten on premises, but they are only offered for takeaway/delivery, it is probably enough to tag the times with delivery=*, and there would be no benefit of adding an extra lunch=*. --Bkil (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Food to take away? You can use takeaway=yes --RoGer6 (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is commonly possible to take away a lunch menu offering, we can tag it with takeaway=yes. (Actually, 99.5% of venues offer takeaway around here, so I never map it) What I meant above is that I know a place that could be mapped as takeaway=only, delivery=Mo-Fr 11:00-13:00. Because you can not sit down to eat, it is not a dining POI in the regular sense that you would like to frequent, so adding lunch=* may or may not be feasible. Although, if they are open all day long and offer a special lunch offer, it could make sense. I'm undecided as of now. -Bkil (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
My new proposal is to introduce lunch:menu:takeaway=yes/no/only and lunch:menu:delivery=yes/no/only. I've now found a restaurant which only offers a lunch menu for takeaway (and with lunch:menu:subscription=only). It is also possible to find delivery-only variants as well. Both takeaway-only and delivery-only can be set at the same time. This would mean that you could either take away the meal or get it delivered, but you can not eat it in place. Bkil (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


Would it make sense to apply lunch=only to an amenity=pub which neither offers a' la carte, nor does it operate a kitchen out of lunch hours? Some apply food=no to pubs lacking a kitchen, while others try to signal this simply by ommitting cuisine=* or giving cuisine=no, however a pub that offers lunch could plausibly have cuisine=* specified, hence some other signaling should be used.
I now see that opening_hours:kitchen=* is much better suited for this task. For such a pub, it needs to be set to the same time range as given for lunch hours. Bkil (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


RoGer6, what does 'abo' stand for? How is it different compared to `lunch:menu:subscription=yes/no/only` Bkil (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Sorry.  That needs to be adjusted. I take care of it. RoGer6 (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to propose additions to this draft. I was just curious. It would be great if we could envision what kind of data consumers could exist in the future and what properties they could find use in. Bkil (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

For example, it occurs to me sometimes that I need to describe a few attributes in prose, so more structured tags are always welcome. Do you think it would be useful if we could specify whether a full week needs to be subscribed in advance or if it is possible to subscribe for a subset of days? Bkil (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Many venues give a discount if you provide your own food container as an eco-minded measure, similar to owncup=*. Should we tag this? Bkil (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, I regularly encounter that they stress that subscribing for the next week is only possible up until Friday (or Thursday). At other places, they declare that you need to subscribe for lunch before 11:00 the previous day, for example, if you'd like to eat on Wednesday, you need to phone in before 11:00 on Tuesday. At present I don't have a good suggestion for this one other than typing it in prose in lunch:menu:subscription:description=*. Bkil (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes they specifically state that subscribing is possible only via e-mail or via phone. This may be conveyed by something like lunch:menu:subscription:email=* and lunch:menu:subscription:phone=*. Bkil (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Mass removal of the description

We are discussing it with the editor, please wait a bit before translating the new version. -Bkil (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you please take some time to explain why you removed so much from the lunch article? I think in order for the concept to really go through, we need to provide much more context. There exist various articles that are much longer and much more elaborate. If you still think something should be refactored, it is polite to ask on the talk page first and/or to move content to the talk page instead of simply deleting it. -Bkil (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Also the whole article has been translated to various languages, and many of these paragraphs are needed to explain some of the concepts that may or may not be universal across cultures. I'd rather have most of the information restored, although you are welcome to do some copy/editing and improving to content as you desire, especially if you are a native English speaker. -Bkil (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Please add back anything that is needed to understand how this key is used in openstreetmap. However, I believe the current concise definition should work: "Lunch is a meal offering around midday." And this tag says whether a feature offers lunch. What do you think is missing? --Jeisenbe (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Not to high jack the conversation, but I agree with what Jeisenbe removed. Most of it was overly descriptive of what lunch is and based on personal opinion. Which could just dealt with by linking to a Wikipedia article. Things like "Trying lunch offerings could be a good and inexpensive way of testing various restaurants when on the budget" don't really contribute much to the article or help people with tagging better. Although, yes some articles are long their content is at least relevant to tagging or are descriptive of something. Like, "A park is in semi-natural state with grassy areas, trees and bushes." Articles should be written like that, in an encyclopedic manor. Not in the style of a personal blog post or opinion piece. Which is how the cut out content was written.--Adamant1 (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Could I ask who you discussed your changes with and that you please invite me to these channels as well? Bkil (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Are there any specific changes that are a problem? I am happy to discuss them here, and fix any mistakes that I made. In general, the old page text was like a detailed proposal. It would be perfectly fine to copy that into Proposed_features/Key:lunch or another location. This page, like all Key: pages, should be an easy-to-read, short description of how the tag is actually used. See Wiki_guidelines: "Keep pages short, use simple language and avoid jargon." ... "Tagging recommendations should ideally match actual tagging practice" ... "Proposals and proposed changes to tagging are the exception to this rule. They must however be clearly be identified as proposals" and also Wiki_guidelines#Introduction. --Jeisenbe (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I created with all the content, though it needs some work: it's not clear what values of lunch=* were proposed. Should we use lunch=buffet/menu or lunch=<opening_hours>? Maybe that can be clarified. --Jeisenbe (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd stick to yes/no and maybe buffet, but there's a buffet tag. Although, it only has 35 uses. So, who knows on that one. With menu there's a lunch:menu tag that has 200 uses. Which is twice as much as lunch=menu. Also, all the side created namespace tags that are only semi-related should stay out of it for the time being. The one thing I'm not sure on is using the tag for hours. While I feel like there's better tags for that and this should just be a simple yes/no tag, but it seems like that's how users want to use it. So..I guess it depends on what specifically the tag is for. Hours should be tagged with an hours tagging scheme though. Otherwise, it's not intuitive and causes fragmentation. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)