Talk:Proposed features/Reworking leisure=bathing place

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments

"Unofficial" and "wilderness"

Resolved: marked as solved, since proposal was changed accordingly

Is bathing_place=unofficial different from informal=yes? bathing_place=wilderness is somewhat subjective, and can be determined by other methods. ---- Kovposch (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that bathing_place=unofficial is about the same as informal=yes. I used the tag to allow a clear distinction between the three types. It should be clear to data users and mappers that they are different from each other. I also agree that wilderness is somewhat subjective. But the tag also helps to make the difference between unofficial and wilderness clear. So that objects are not mapped incorrectly. Perhaps the rules should be a little more explicit. But I have tried to make them as objective as possible. --Gruebel (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

These tags will not be verifiable by other mappers. If there is no physical evidence such as a sign or steps or a ramp into the water, then how is another mapper to confirm that there is a real, current bathing place at the location? Natural streams and lakeshores change with each season, and a nice beach or swimming hole may disappear the next year. There needs to be objective criteria for this tag to be approved. Jeisenbe (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

After your feedback I changed the proposal and removed bathing_place=* and added informal=*. I also tried to be clearer about when a place really exists to make the tag more verifiable. Thank you for the feedback. Is it now clear in your opinion? --Gruebel (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Adaption from amenity=public_bath

Resolved: marked as solved, since proposal was changed accordingly

The status of bath:type=* seems a bit of messy in its values (off-topic here: some are country-specific, or can be mixed). Documentation in Tag:amenity=public_bath#Onyokushisetsu_-_public_hot_bath_facilities_in_Japan-:_Onsen.2C_Sentō_and_other_public_baths have some inconsistency (like adding bath:open_air=*, and having both bath:type=ashiyu and bath:type=foot_bath). When comparing the"approved" water_source=* from emergency=fire_hydrant, it is unclear whether bath:type=* means the water source in a amenity=public_bath, or the location (ie a place far from a river/lake/sea can still take water from that water-body) as what is being used in leisure=bathing_place here. Tag:amenity=public_bath#Tags_to_use_in_combination and Key:bath:type#Values describes bath:type=river, bath:type=lake, bath:type=sea as "at a river", "at a lake", and "at a sea/ocean". Somehow ambiguous.

Recently there was also some discussion about tagging the name of the water source for some spring or well feature that I forgot about somewhere.

-- Kovposch (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that the tag is a bit weak. The tag water_source=* sounds appropriate if it is also used for shelters and campsites. I will change the proposal. Thank you. --Gruebel (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Charging fee

Resolved: marked as solved, since proposal was changed accordingly

"... nor does it charge for entrance" - I think this shouldn't be part of the definition of bathing_place=official. There could be places that are official, don't have showers or changing rooms, but charge a fee for whatever reason. We should use fee=yes/no instead.--AntMadeira (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok but it should be clear that normally there is no entrance fee. I will change the proposal, thank you. --Gruebel (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Unofficial spots - considerations about what should be included

Resolved: marked as solved, since proposal was changed accordingly

I'm an occasional river swimmer, in the UK where most outdoor swimming spots are unofficial. They vary widely in conditions, access (legal, which is complex here and physical), and practicality. I've swum in some where there were many other swimmers, paddleboarders etc., and it would be possible to get in and swim along the river (I'd jump in and add 6+ of these from experience with no worries though they may already be done), and others where the pool was just big enough for a dip for 1-2 people (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/607980077 which I think is debatable). Some people will go in almost anywhere, even if the majority of outdoor swimmers would think it too risky. I'm very much in favour of the idea of tagging outdoor swim spots, but think we should work towards a consensus as to where we should draw the line - just "it's not illegal and humans have entered the water" would seem to include too many spots of little or no use to the majority of those interested in the tagged features. --ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

With the subkey sport=swimming I wanted to make sure that you can quickly make an estimate about the size. In addition, the water should be mapped next to it and on the basis of this size you should already be able to estimate the dimensions of the bathing place. This is also recognizable by the water_source=* tag. But I will change that the place would be used by the majority of outdoor swimmers. --Gruebel (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Subjective criteria

Resolved: marked as solved, since proposal was changed accordingly

While desirable things, I don't think these criteria should relate to inclusion on the map, but are a matter of personal decision-making when making use of them (just like with footpaths in less than ideal situations):

  • At that place it should be possible to relax. Thus, not directly next to inhabited houses or a motorway, ... -- I can think of a few popular and one occasional spot directly underneath motorways/trunk roads (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28028238), spotted while kayaking. And yes, people were relaxing on the bank as well as actually swimming. These nearby inconveniences can be seen on the map, and will mean something different to different people - locals without transport vs. holidaymakers for example.
  • The water should be clean... changes rapidly; normally clean water may not be after heavy rainfall due to farm runoff or sewage overflows. That shouldn't prevent adding well-known places.

Both of these anyway contradict The existents of a bathing place should be known because the mapper was present or has other knowledge about the place. which seems much more appropriate for a map, as opposed to a guidebook of recommendations. To some extent this overlaps with my previous comment about where to draw the line, but I've made it separate to allow for easier partial disagreement. --ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. I have removed two conditions and edited others. --Gruebel (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Discrepancy vs. leisure=swimming_area

Resolved: problems were addressed and no further problems were named

The leisure=swimming_area wiki says "A swimming area is an officially designated place where you can swim", which doesn't fit with the suggestion in this proposal to map the swimming area in the water using that tag, at least as regards informal bathing places. This could be addressed by careful wording in wiki pages, so that swimming_area can correctly reflect well-defined areas, but then we have no way of mapping the extent of usable water if leisure=bathing_place + informal=yes maps the land. --ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand what is meant and I thought that was clear. I will change the wording to avoid misunderstandings. --Gruebel (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I would not define a tag for the amount of water that belongs to the bathing place, as it is very ambiguous. For example, how much water belongs to the bathing place if the water is a large lake or sea? Here there are no clear boundaries and therefore this area is not verifiable. --Gruebel (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I think it's tricky, and I perhaps could have been clearer. Some beaches etc. on lakes/rivers have swimming areas marked out by buoys; that's what I meant by well-defined. Some rivers have small pools bounded by waterfalls/rapids/weirs (e.g. Janet's Foss https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/769390132 which is popular with local swimmers) so are implicitly defined, while others (Cheese Wharf near https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/228932513 - I've just added it but it's not showing yet) allow access to huge stretches of river so couldn't be marked out. I'm not sure of the best approach. --ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes I agree. This often makes it impossible to map a satisfactory and verifiable area. If it is not implicitly clear, maybe the description=* tag can help to roughly describe how the area is bounded. --Gruebel (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Nature reserve and discouraged bathing place

Resolved

I recently learned about a nature reserve where for historical reasons it's allowed to bath, but highly discouraged for nature protection reasons (it's a peat bog). How such places should be mapped? access=discouraged exists, but I'm not certain that the intention is the same.

The example nature reserve in question (in french): https://www.pronatura.ch/fr/reserve-naturelle-etang-de-la-gruere https://www.laliberte.ch/news-agence/detail/le-jura-veut-mieux-proteger-ses-reserves-naturelles/607817 Imagoiq (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think these areas should be mapped with the tag. It is to mark used areas that would be used by the majority of outdoor swimmers. I don't think that applies to such places and besides, I wouldn't use the tag to encourage people to swim in such places just because it is not prohibited. --Gruebel (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not certain. This place, as I have heard, is very popular for bathing and I think that a well-intentioned user could add this tag to this place without knowing that is discouraged. I saw this talk recently (in German): https://media.ccc.de/v/fossgis2021-8973-openstreetmap-in-nationalparken-chancen-folgen-und-herausforderungen#t=316 and I'm convinced that OSM should also indicate those things. However, I'm not an expert of any kind, and I'm not even entirely sure why it is discouraged (one part at least is the erosion of the waterside, and therefore it's advised to use the small wooden pier). Imagoiq (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay then, I misunderstood you. If it meets the conditions it should be mapped. But you should then make it clear with further tags that people are not really welcome. access=discouraged or description=* could be used. The question is this example an exception or does something like this occur frequently enough to be added to the proposal? --Gruebel (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, this is a good question. I'll contact the two people from the talk, maybe they can help on that. Thanks for your reply. Imagoiq (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I will mark this as resolved. If it turns out that there are significantly more places of this type, it can be adjusted in the future. --Gruebel (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

natural=beach

Resolved

Rationale and Tagging are contradictory.

You can't say in the rationale that natural=beach can't be used and in the tagging that is should be used.

KISS : use beach and add the correct surface.

Rationale: surface=grass exists and is widely used. Other surface=* can be user defined as explained in the wiki. --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

natural=beach does not include the same as the tag leisure=bathing_place:
1. How to mark if a place is official or informal? informal=yes looks very strange with natural=beach.
2. What about areas that are actually meadows, i.e. landuse=meadow? surface=meadow does not fit in the surface=* tag. To be honest I also find surface=grass not fitting to the definition of natural=beach in the wiki.
3. Official and informal can only consist of an access to water and have no real surface. This does not fit with the description of natural=beach: landform along a body of water which consists of sand, shingle or other loose material. According to the wiki it is possible to map it as a single node, but this still contradicts the definition.
Another example would be my 3rd example image. This place is very often used by hikers as a bathing place. But in my opinion I can't justify using a natural=beach tag there, because there is simply no beach.
I will try to write the proposal more clearly in this regard. --Gruebel (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
You did succeed to some extent. However I still read "As before it should be possible to completely submerge under water and still move (not walk)." "As the name suggest it is a bathing place, so swimming must not be possible". With both conditions (water level > human height + no swim), surviving may be challenging ;-(, moving under water without swimming or walking?
Regarding the third image, IHMO, water=stream_pond is sufficient.
Likewise for informal: what is informal? The fact that you can bath but you're tagging the shore, right? Then it's strange too! If the proof of evidence is the existence of the path, it's enough to map the path asif a path is going to the water (not along), the purpose is pretty clear, isn't it?
I've no big problem with beach+landuse=meadow. If you look at the definition of a beach, the highest part is often covered by Ammophila arenaria or Festuca (at least in my sea side area). --Nospam2005 (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The wiki for natural=beach says that they stop where: "they are no longer shaped by the water waves - whichever comes first". Thus, places with flora are most likely mapped incorrectly.
With "completely submerge under water" I didn't mean to stand under water but to fit with the complete body under the water surface (sit or lie). I can improve this in the proposal.
To the third picture. From water=stream_pool it is not clear if this is also used as a bathing place. The point of this tag is not to map places where you can bath, but where this is done, either official or informal.
The place is informal because it is used to enter the water without an official place. When a relaxation area is mapped, it is also used informally as such an area and usually has a different use (like landuse=meadow).
The proof that such a place exists is not only a way, that is only an indication. It is about places that are regularly used by people as bathing places.
--Gruebel (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hot Water

Resolved: marked as solved, since proposal was changed accordingly

I'm thinking especially at bath:type=hot_spring to specify whether the bath spot is hot water or not. For instance, there's a lot of natural/informal hot water bathing spots in Iceland. LySioS (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It makes sense but bath:type is not making any sense, bath=* would be ways better.
bath:type=river|lake|sea is not giving any information: the place defines that.
Other values are OK.
Note that values defined on amenity=public_bath are different (and OK) --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed bath:type has already been discussed in the "Adaption from amenity=public_bath" section. And I agree with all of you.

So, I'm changing the title of this discussion and I propose to use water_source=hot_spring. LySioS (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

+1, KISS compatible and strait-forward. If Japanese people feel necessary to refine, hot_spring=* would be the place to go. --Nospam2005 (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you and would note in the proposal that water_source=* is expanded to include water_source=hot_spring. --Gruebel (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

KISS, round two ;-)

Resolved

As mentioned, amenity=public_bath and this tag have a lot in common: both are places where you can bath in public. So what about adding simply fee=no, informal=yes?

No, unisex=yes is probably not needed, it can be considered as the default value!

The fact that you have no pool, no shower, etc... is probably sufficient to make the difference with a real amenity.

Yes, it would be an amenity without facilities, but the current proposal which propose to change the current definition "Place used for bathing and swimming" to a place for bathing but NOT swimming would make the tag just unusable. For me changing radically (yes radically from yes to no) the definition of a tag is a no go. Better to use the work taken for this proposal to improve amenity=public_bath and depreciate leisure=bathing place.

And we can take the opportunity to clarify hopt springs, etc..; : do the job once.

Facilities can be added separately, at minimum shower=yes or no would give information --Nospam2005 (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"bathing but NOT swimming" I don't know where I said that. My statement is that swimming does not have to be possible. But at many bathing places you can swim of course. In this case the tag sport=swimming is added to make this clear.
Also, for me, the difference is more than enough to demand its own tag. A public bath with facilities is very different from e.g. a meadow at the water which is used as bathing place and maybe has a public toilet nearby. Also users of the map would be very happy if this is not the same tag. Since the main tag is already meaningful. Also, map creators could just render specifically from main tag and already map users could think they are looking at a real public bath but instead it is just a stream pool where people bath and/or swim.
Also, I see a use of informal=yes at amenity=public_bath very critical. An informal public bath makes no sense to me. The word bath, to my understanding, speaks of a true amenity and should not be used in places where there are no facilities and no management.
--Gruebel (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
You said "As the name suggest it is a bathing place, so swimming must not be possible (add sport=swimming if swimming is possible)." "Must not" is ambiguous as you highlighted not. You meant that swimming has not to be possible. So you say that swimming may be possible and can be tagged separately. "If swimming is also possible, add sport=swimming." is clearer and simpler.
With the subtags, users can make the difference. At first hand if they want to bath, both are an option. Two different main tags but same/similar subtags and similar icons (*)... If you add toilets near by, you should change the main tag. Please note the description of the public_bath: "A location where the public may bathe in common". Is what you want to describe "A location where the public may bathe in common" or not? I don't follow the logic.

(*) same icon except the colour - thanks for colour-blind people by the way! --Nospam2005 (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree the sentence could be clearer regarding swimming. I will change the wording in the proposal.
  • An unofficial swimming pool - geograph.org.uk - 632169.jpg
  • Blue Lagoon 2012-08-23 (4).JPG
  • Asser Levy Recreation Center.jpg
  • I find the difference between the two left images enough to justify another tag. And for me at least, the left image could not be an informal public bath. With amenity=public_bath it can also be a hall where a bath is present (third picture), this is very different from a meadow at water. As a user of the map or other maps like (Osmand) I would want to see a clear visual difference. For this to happen a different maintag is very helpful.
    "A location where the public may bathe in common" Yes this also applies to leisure=bathing_place. But this is just half the definition of amenity=public_bath. According to the logic you could combine many tags. Also, when revising, you could make the definition of amenity=public_bath clearer and focus more on the amenity.
    I would actually prefer a slightly different icon as well, to allow colorblind people to distinguish between them. Unfortunately, the default map display has such simple icons that this is very difficult and I couldn't think of anything better. (For example, one could add a staircase or something similar for public_bath to show that it is a larger facility, but that would probably already be too complex).
    --Gruebel (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC) (edited: third image added) --Gruebel (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

    Hi, Kiss but don't make it wrong. Amenity implies man made some constructions/facilities to enjoy bathing. Leisure seems more appropriate. This proposal aims to map informal places that are not meant to be bathing places in a touristic sense but which are used as such. If i dont get it wrong. And i hope i'm clear. To me, informal=no means there's a path and sign(s) witnessing this place is used by local people to bath with no facilities whatsoever. Informal=yes means there's just a path.

    Second point, the swimming potential of the spot should not be considered. Besides, i find it hard to draw the line between a place large enough to swim and a place too short. Unless the place is very big and profund (and I don't think that's the case of what we try to map here), this is too subjective. Maybe, we should just dropped the swimming=yes in this case.

    Your first point agrees with my definition so far. But I would mention again that also informal=yes places are used by people for bathing, and would be used by a majority of outdoor swimmers.
    I disagree with your second point. In all three places in my example list (proposal, not this page) you can swim and this is done there. If you are not clear if you can swim at the place leave out the tag. However, it gives you a quick estimate of the size of the bathing place and is therefore very important.
    By the way, you can use ":" to indent your comment. Use "--~~~~" to add your name and time.
    --Gruebel (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)



    Since there are no more further arguments against the proposal, I would mark this as resolved. Feel free to change this if more issues come up. --Gruebel (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

    Minor nitpick on the wording regarding beaches

    Currently the page states "At large beaches it is also clear you can bath (next to a ocean or big lake). Here it should not be tagged!" I am living in a land-locked country so I don't know good examples but I think this wording is too restrictive in the sense that I could think of situations where even on a larger beach there are certain preferred places to enter the water, for example because the sea floor differs (e.g., in vegetation), due to some hazards etc. The wording above would make it impossible to "legally" use that tag in these cases. I suggest to ease that prohibition (after the vote) without taking away the clear indication that this should be the exception, e.g., "At large beaches where it is clear you can enter the water everywhere, it should not be tagged."

    Bath or bathe?

    Sorry, I was away when this proposal came up so am just catching up with it.

    I'm confused? Are you talking about places where you bath (wash yourself), or bathe (swim)?

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bath

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bathe?topic=swimming

    --Fizzie41 (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

    FYI BathingWaterIdentifier - EU --> Wikidata P9616

    In Wikidata we now have a property P9616 = "Eionet bathingWaterIdentifier" this is the persistenmt identifier used for bathingwater in EU see https://dd.eionet.europa.eu/dataelements/99263

    As a tag leisure=bathing_area can be connected to Wikidata that is connected to EU --> that is one way to get information about the status of the bathing water - Salgo60 (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)