Proposal talk:Boat Rental

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I find this proposal nice.

But I would prefer some way else to tag the type of boat you can rent. The proposed boat_rental=* is not easy to use when the rental shop propose different type. And if a list could be constructed, I would prefere not to use sail_boat;house_boat;motor_boat;... Something like :

  • motorboat_rental=yes/no
  • houseboat_rental=yes/no
  • pedalboat_rental=yes/no
  • jetski_rental=yes/no
  • sailboat_rental=yes/no
  • kayak_rental=yes/no
  • dinghy_rental=yes/no [1]
(all being optional of course, and no being the default if unspecified)


sletuffe 15:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

you're right. I find your idea much better than mine...
--Efred 17:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a good detail but shouldn't it be used like boat=*? This is like it amenity=vending_machine and all other do... This would allow to use this detail in other things like caracterizing for lakes,shipyards,...--!i! 08:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I get what you mean... boat=* is an access tag, it does not list different kinds of boats right ?. About amenity=vending_machine and it's tag vending=*, I believe it was done that way because a vending machine rarely sells different types of goods. And when it does, then the problem will araise, and mappers will need to use ";" to seperate tags. IMAHO, when only 1 or 2 types are concerned, it is still usable, but in the boat rental case, there might be a few more (6 to 10 ?) and maintaining such a list is not easy right now. (Right now, because that's all a matter of osm editors IHM, and tools to operate on data) sletuffe 17:32, 18 August 2010 (BST)

I would prefer rental:motorboat=yes/no etc. --AndiG88 (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


How can this proposal apply to way ways? --Skippern 16:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

p.e. if you rent a houseboat in Ireland, there are sometimes defined routes, where you can go. Perhaps, you can take on this river just the left way, if you come from nord (I don't know, it's just an example). its similar to the ferries: there are also ways in the water Tag:route=ferry.
--Efred 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
In that case it should be protected inside a relation as a role, and not a waterway tagged with i.e. amenity=boat_rental. That is how it is supposed to be done with routes as well, though it is necessary to mark a waterway for the ferry where it crosses open water. I still don't see what this proposal have to do with ways. The boat rental is still a defined location, either a node or area, relation can be used to mark such restriction as you mentioned of where they are allowed to go. If a waterway was tagged with amenity=boat_rental than I would guess you could hail agents anywhere along the waterway and have your rented boat delivered to you in no time. That kind of service must be unique if at all existing. --Skippern 18:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
yes, you're right. But, I know from offers in Sweden: there you can rent canoes and kayaks on the top of a river, and at the end of a defined route, you can call the operator. Then the operator will drive to the destination and take the canoe or kayak on his wagon and he drive back to the startposition. But I don't know, if you find such offers also in other countries, but I think so.
--Efred 19:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
But still with that kind of offers I find that to be two (or maybe a few more) defined points, also the most interesting is the start point which have to be clearly signed, the destination points can be marked as single nodes, or grouped together in the relation. It still doesn't need to make the river in between tagged with boat_rental. I think the way part should be taken out of the proposal, and rather explain how the relation should work, and how ways can be members of the relation. --Skippern 00:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
You're right. I delete the way from the proposal. And so I think, I can also delete the relation-part. For the relation, I had the same idea.
Or, make it sense, to let the relation? Perhaps for tagging an area on a lake, which is not allowed to leave?
--Efred 05:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

merge with other rental types

why not create a generic amenity=rental tag with rental=boat/car/bicycle etc.? else we have to create a new proposal for every rental biz (e.g. if someone has a Segway-Rental or a plane rental or an umbrella rental) and we don't have to create two amenities if someone rents boats AND bicycles. I think in long-term that would be way more straightforward and gives us more flexibility. The rental-tag specifies the main vehicle type (or whatever it is) that can be rented. A subtype-key then could list the specific boat types available (or car types, or whatever is being rented). I generally like the idea of including boat renting in OSM, but I'd love an implementation like currently used with shop: amenity=shop and shop=xy for the specific shop type. Maybe we could first summarize the requirements and properties rental amenities in general have and then create some sort of generic rental amenity with as much types and subtypes as possible. Your work could then be reused with the new generic amenity=rental. Hence most of the work is already done! --Marc 07:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

smart, clean, extensible.
(we could even propose amenity=shop + shop=rental + rental=*)
unfortunetly, this idea is comming a bit late since rental is allready used and define in a number of places :
amenity=car_rental, amenity=bicycle_rental sletuffe 11:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
so what? tags can be replaced and converted automatically, people will adjust to the new tags. wouldn't be the first time some tags get thrown away and replaced by new ones ;) --Marc 11:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I give a +1 on a proposal to create amenity=rental and change the existing rentals to use that tagging system, with tag|rental=bicycle/car/boat/camel. Additional tagging could be used such as type=sail/narrow. I'd be just as happy with shop=rental although I don't think that really fits under a hierarchy as nicely. - LastGrape/Gregory 03:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
shop=rental fits equally well as amenity=rental, maybe even better. I think they fit equally well there same as shop=travel_agent, as far as I know they are not tagged amenity=travel_agent --Skippern 16:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
please don´t mix rental of vehicles with rental of other objects like tools, videos, umbrellas, books, etc.. I don´t remember any rental for boats AND bicycles, but I know many companies which sell, rent and repair one class of vehicles. It might be more reasonable to have a top-level tag for boat-business with sub-tags for shop, rental, repair-shop,...
OSM uses many special tags for vehicles like "amenity=fuel" instead of "amenity=shop; shop=liquid, liquid=fuel". One top-level tag for all kinds of boat rental appears correct for me. I agree to have one generic rental-tag for all objects except vehicles. --Seawolff 01:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you to create a shop=rental but this is not part of this proposal, is it? --!i! 08:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I have the one mentioned above to map in Arosa. It's a shop where boats and bicycles are rent, also bicycles are sold and its a bicycle repair shop, also you get the local "Tourist-Card" there. For me the possibilities LastGrape/Gregory and Skippern had proposed above will work but amenity=xxx_rental will not because there can only be one amenity=*. I tagged an amenity=boat_rental now and added a FIXME with infos about the bicycle rental and shop --Jhohn 07:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)