Proposal talk:Basic hut

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


So, I guess bivouac ( would be classified as bothy?

I've been thinking about this. But I think there are not enough differences to create an other type.
(But if more people think it makes difference and give some properties to reconize, then why not)
We've got some of them in france as well with no real anchored walls, looks like a big meta box like this
They have fireplaces less often than other huts, but I think the bothy or wilderness_hut could fit Sletuffe 11:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem here in the italian side of alps with this. We have 2 type of shelter in addition to Alpine huts: Bivouacs and Casere; a Casera fits perfectly with the wilderness hut definition because is an old and unused "malga" open to the public (a solid mountain house made in rock and wood used as a stable/warehouse for high pastures and often as a place for making cheese). so it have some beds, a fireplace for heating and cooking and, sometimes a toilette.

a bivouac is just made by some steel or wood, it's also very small with some mattresses and sometimes a fireplace... but we can't tag a bivouac as a bothy because has a dedicated sleeping place... calling a casera in the same way of a bivouac is a very big mistake! so if we modify the bothy definition from "No dedicated sleeping places, not intended for that use (only ground) " to "optional presence of sleeping places" our alpine maps will be more usefull. Bigshot 19:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you describe a bit more the difference between what you call a "bivouac" (which in english and french is not equivalent : see [1]) and a "casera" ? Or else we could add a optionnal tag such as steel_made=yes to wilderness_hut italian bivacco. But I don't see the main difference between them. Setting capacity=4 should show the fact it's much smaller. Remember we are trying to find worldwide tagging Sletuffe 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
A Bivouac (Bivacco in italian) here is a very little shelter with just 4 wall made of steel or wood. Just a place for sleeping at night.
A Casera is a real public house... with proper walls that makes it a warmer place than a bivacco. With a lot of more services... for example a water tap, some tables and chairs, a first aid kit and much more as you can see
There's too many differencies tag both as a wilderness hut... and i think that these different kind of structures aren't just an italian exclusive. imagine you are walking in a mountain path, you feel sick and night is coming... you have to choose a good and warm place for sleeping!Bigshot 21:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm creating this proposal. We'll see the general feeling of community. But I'll vote neither yes nor no because I think it's really close. When it comes to isolation (wich looks the real difference between both), this is rather subjective, and I think a description=* deserves it better. Sletuffe 11:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


I moved out this section to talk page for discussion, see down there

  • These could probably also be included in the group "lean to" as they are also:
  • Generally free rent, open to the public
  • Basic shelter to protect from rain
  • May have dedicated sleeping places
  • May have fireplace
  • May be fully closed, or have open wall
  • generally fairly basic but can also be very elaborately modified natural structures. The generic term "bivouac" or commonly referred to as "bivvy" can be a temporary man-made structure or camp but is also used refer to a permanent man-made structure such as a lean_to or bothy above. It can also be a natural structure like a rock overhang or shallow cave and/or combination natural and man-made. Natural rock bivvies are quite common in New Zealand and in remote areas are often the only structures available for shelter to mountaineers and hikers. They can be modified with a range of natural and man-made materials, can be quite elaborate and include beds, fireplaces, toilets etc. Various types of bivvy: [2], [3], [4]. Also: [5] (About halfway down the page the official Dept. of Conservation site refers to a rock bivvy as a primary source of shelter)
  • My proposal is to find a generic term to cover bivouacs/lean_tos/bothys either "lean to" or "bivouac" may be appropriate --gerkin

I do agree that both should be merged as they are close enough and having 10 different building would lead to confusion. Either it is lean_to or "bivouac", I don't care much. But note that bivouac is really confusion both in the english language and french language. bivouac in english bivouac in french

  • addition tags below could be used as appropriate to describe type, construction, features, equipment etc.
  • On reflection "lean_to" might be best choice as is is probably more international/generic as "bivouac" can have different meanings even in English depending on the country/context eg. [6] or [7] or [8] or [9] - the terms "bivvy", "bivouac" or even "rock shelter" to describe these very different structures. --gerkin

The Proposed_features/bothy case

It was proposed as :

  • Free rent, open to the public
  • Basic shelter to protect from bad weather
  • No dedicated sleeping places, not intended for that use (only ground)
  • No fireplace
  • Fully closed (roof and walls)
  • Bothy on wikipedia

But : I've been told a bothy is the name mostly used in the UK and is close or equivalent to a wilderness_hut, only the name defers. this one might be droped in favor of wilderness_hut

So english/scotish/irish bothy are to be tagged as wilderness_hut OR lean_to if not fully enclosed by roof and walls sletuffe 16:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

difference with shelter

Bothy/Shelter Isn't this the same as the already implemented amenity=shelter? Einarr 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that no, (and no shelter is in propose state)
The problem I see with Proposed_features/Shelter, is that it is unclear what it really is, the meaning in its name is unclear (all four on this page are shelters)
The description says : Some hut to protect against bad weather conditions. I use it for roofed benches in a forest, but it could also be used for a Bothy or small alpine huts.
And a bothy is supposed to have a roof and closed walls (at least in my proposition)
All my 4 (well 3) examples with additional tags are subcategories of shelter. Sletuffe 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I think bothy should be merged with wilderness hut. SK53 15:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed Sletuffe 22:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Post voting usage

The proposal for basic_hut didn't get approval. There are two main possibilities. First we can use tourism=wilderness_hut with additional tags, but the approved description of wilderness_hut don't fit for a basic_hut. Second we can use amenity=shelter with an optional shelter_type=*. Up to now basic huts are tagged as amenity=shelter. Therefore it is the least effort to keep this tagging and add a new value to shelter_type. My suggestion is shelter_type=closed_hut. --Rudolf 07:56, 8 May 2012 (BST)

I think that wilderness_hut is still the closest match to the description of "basic_hut". Whichever value you add to amenity=shelter to describe a basic hut structurally, you miss the implied "wilderness" features. It would be like trying to describe an alpine_hut adding a type value to tourism=hotel. Telling which shelters are real wilderness shelters will require complex analysis of the surroundings. --Kaitu 13:40, 8 May 2012 (BST)
+1 to Kaitu, and proposing additionals tags (such as fireplace=no) does mean it's a wilderness_hut but with one usual property (having a fireplace) to no. I don't much problems to this way of doing. sletuffe 14:04, 8 May 2012 (BST)
No problem with me, although I thought that osm has a somewhat democratic structure. The majority of opposing voters claims to use amenity=shelter for a basic hut. If we use wilderness_hut then I would suggest to remove the words with fireplace from the description and use fireplace=yes/no mandatory to avoid uncertainties. But this would change an approved feature. Otherwise a basic hut don't fullfil the conditions of tourism=wilderness_hut. --Rudolf 08:08, 9 May 2012 (BST)
The "democratic" trust in the wiki is somewhat a very debatable thing. Many users don't like the voting process of the wiki and consider that a used tag is more important than a wiki vote. My opinion lies in between. For a main tag like tourism=wilderness_hut, I think it is better to have a vote, but adding additionnal tags that only slighly change the meaning (even if I add a fireplace=yes, that's still somewhere I can sleep, isolated, open to the public, that tag won't change it into an hotel) could be added in an "optionnal and non voted" section where it says "you can add this or this but it wasn't part of the first proposal".
As for removing the with fireplace why not just say on the page that fireplace=yes is the default, but one can add fireplace=no
IMHO the default value of every logical key in osm is no. I think it's too complicated to use yes as default in this case. --Rudolf 16:12, 9 May 2012 (BST)

I think this tagging wiht fireplace=yes or no is too complicated. A wilderness_hut is a wilderness_hut as described in the approved feature page. With shelter_type=* there exist already a possibility to define different shelters. Up to now, basic huts are mainly mapped with amenity=shelter. So, according to the mostly comments, I suggest to create shelter_type=basic_hut for the further using. --Rudolf 07:05, 6 June 2012 (BST)

meaning of fireplace

I'm confused. While searching for the english meaning of "fireplace", I just found that it wasn't what I though it was. I thought a fireplace, was any place where you can create a fire, but looks like no ! A stove isn't a fireplace. That change my vote in fact, because I was going to tag tourism=wilderness_hut for many huts where there isn't a fireplace (chimeney) but a stove !. Shame on my poor english, but my vote whould become "no" unless the "with a fireplace" becomes optionnal, with an additionnal tag. sletuffe 11:28, 9 May 2012 (BST)

To make things worse: in British English stove means a piece of equipment which burns fuel or uses electricity in order to heat a place. For burning wood you must use the phrase wood stove. ;-) I think you can make a notation that fireplace=yes includes also a wood stove or a gas oven. Otherwise we must differ between fireplace, wood stove and gas oven. That's very complex. Or we use cooking=yes. --Rudolf 16:07, 9 May 2012 (BST)