Talk:Proposed features/amenity=baking oven

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Isn't that covered by man_made=kiln already? The English definition mentions baking, and the German page has a picture of an over for baking.

--Yvanoé 12:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC): Thanks for the tip, but in my opinion (I am not so good with English language) it is very rarely for cooking, see for example the Wikipedia page that does not even mention cooking. On the other hand, the tag I propose would apply to buildings that are built as baking oven.

--Phoks (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC): I think a man_made=kiln would not fit here, because a kiln is meant to melt or dry industrial stuff, like pottery, cement or charcoal. The introduction of an amenity=baking_oven sounds like a good idea to me. Our tagging group UlmerAlb already was searching for a proper tag to tag such ovens that are meant for baking bread and are mostly accessible publicly, sometimes to a closed user group, e.g. a countrywomen club.

--Phoks (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC): I additionally would suggest an optional tag public=* for denoting an oven building to be publically accessible or not.

--Yvanoé 16:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC): Mark Gemis gave an interesting link on the mailing list to help on this topic: list of ovens. Also, I agree with Phoks that public=* would be useful. Do not hesitate to include this in the proposal if you know how to do it :)

If it were for the baking facilitiy only, then I think amenity=banking_oven does fit, but if it is for the building, then building=bakehouse or amenity=bakehouse would be more appropriate, I think. I'd love to be able to tag the building, because in south-western Germany, these buildings are usually in the village center and often have "Backhaus" (EN: "Bakehouse") written on them. This visually indicates some importance for the building itself, not only for the oven (which in some cases is disused, while the building continues to be "the bakehouse"). Tagging the building (or a node inside) with amenity=baking_oven appears to not really match their character. --Meillo (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

--Yvanoé 17:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC): The last comment is very interesting, and I agree that building=bakehouse or amenity=bakehouse would be better. However, do you think it would be possible to have one tag that fits "European bakehouse" but also other sorts like horno and tabun oven, or these other sorts should have another tag? Concerning the fact that it is sometimes disused, we could use disused:building=bakehouse.

I'm for using both building=bakehouse and amenity=baking_oven, as supported by Martin and and Dave on Tagging. The first is for the building without regarding the interior. The style and size of baking houses should be typical for the regions and so an own building value is warranted. I'm also against re-using oven=* here. The tag is meant as a supporting tag for e.g. a restaurant and not for marking a public amenity. A public oven in a baking house should be under the key amenity=*.

--Jojo4u (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Tagging proposals by OSM group UlmerAlb

We suggest to add both tags, building=bakehouse and amenity=baking_oven, plus the proposal oven=*.

Following are some examples, how we would tag some existing bakehouses in our region:

Case 1: Dedicated bakehouse building

opening_hours=Sa 14:00-18:00

Case 2: Historic bakehouse; building still exists, oven not used anymore


Case 3: Baking oven inside of a public building


Inside a node with:


--For UlmerAlb: Meillo (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all for your suggestions, I have put it on the main page. I also think that the oven=* tag, while not very important, is helpful.

However, I admit that this proposal is reaching my limits of understanding. I would really like to get help on the formalization process.

Also, on which tag could the icon be displayed ? building=bakehouse seems great, but it will prevent other types of public oven to appear on the map (I am thinking of things like horno, tabun oven, beehive oven, or Kemence).

--yvanoé 15:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Examples in the proposal

There is this example in the proposal:

opening_hours=Sa 14:00-18:00; Su-Fr,PH off
operator=municipality of anchorage

I think we should not suggest such tagging: the building is not the same as the oven (or is it?), hence there should be 2 objects: a bakehouse and inside a baking_oven. Also the operator should likely be capitalized: "Municipality of Anchorage". --Dieterdreist (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

My novice opinion is that there is no need for a second object for amenity=baking_oven: a bakehouse is necessarily an amenity=baking_oven or a disused:amenity=baking_oven. Other opinions are very welcome. I agree with the uppercase for the operator. --Yvanoé (talk) 9:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

the way I see it is that an (active) bakehouse has necessarily at least one baking oven, it is not itself the oven. --Dieterdreist (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
After having slept one night over it, I tend to agree with Dieterdreist that this is bad tagging practice and we should not advertise it. My thinking is this: The object either is a bakehouse or it is a baking oven. It cannot be both at the same time. But of course, each (active) bakehouse will have a baking oven, thus this will be implicitly provided. If there is no need to specify the concrete type of oven, then building=bakehouse is enough (at least with opening hours provided, it is clear that the bakehouse is active ... or, if mappers work well, it can assumed to be active unless "disused:" is added). Only if one want's to add more detail, he can add an amenity=baking_oven object into the bakehouse with additional information about the oven. Thus, I'm for changing the example. --Meillo (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I would tend to agree. BUT: imagine a historic bakehouse (i.e. not used any more) which is now a museum and open for visiting. You would expect tags like:
  • building=bakehouse
  • start_date=(construction date)

and another object for the museum (e.g. overlapping way or more likely a multipolygon relation with the building as outer member):

  • tourism=museum
  • start_date=(opening of the museum)
  • opening_hours=(opening hours of the museum)

now in this museum the oven could be either operated for demonstrational scope or disused, so you'd want to have the tag amenity=baking_oven or disused:amenity=baking_oven for the oven. I don't particularily like tagging schemes that go like "disused:building=bakehouse" because bakehouse is the type of building, regardless of use of the building. --Dieterdreist (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your tagging scheme. --Meillo (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems that the example 2 should then be changed as well to maybe: disused:building=bakehouse, or at least the building and the amenity should be made separate objects. --Meillo (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

One more thought: I wondered if building=bakehouse and amenity=baking_oven is just the same relationship as between building=station and railway=station. But you (Dieterdreist) suggest to use separate objects for the bakehouse and the oven, but AFAIK common practice is to use only one for the station. However, I assume that there exist bakehouses in which the (wood-fired) oven is included in the building itself, in which case there probably should only be one object. And there do exist cases (mainly the ones in my area) where the oven is more considered a separate object inside the building (definitely if it's an electic oven). --Meillo (talk)

A disused bakehouse, would it be: building=bakehouse + disused:amenity=baking_oven (possibly: building=bakehouse + removed:amenity=baking_oven), or disused:building=bakehouse? In the case of stations or churches, I think that the building would be left unchanged but only disused:railway=station or disused:amenity=place_of_worship would be used. We should write about this case in the proposal. --Meillo (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

New Examples as requested by mail

active bakehouse
one osm object (way or multipolygon-relation) * building=bakehouse * all kind of subtags relating to the building (name, oven (if you want), opening_hours, etc.)
another osm object (way or node or multipolygon-relation): * amenity=baking_oven (most important tag I'd use for finding active bakehouses) * all kind of useful subtags relating to the oven (like oven, operator, producer of the oven, material, size, service_times, ...)

inactive bakehouse
one osm object (way or multipolygon-relation) * building=bakehouse * historic=bakehouse * all kind of subtags relating to the building (name, no oven tag, etc.)
another osm object (way or node or multipolygon-relation) if there is still a disused oven: * disused:amenity=baking_oven * some subtags you think are stll important when relating to the disused oven (like oven, operator, producer of the oven, material, size, ...)

--Dieterdreist (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

IMO the oven=* tag should not be used on the building=bakehouse object, for the same reasons you give that amenity=baking_oven should not be used there. oven=* should only be used to give details to amenity=baking_oven (... and to amenity=restaurant and such). Apart from that I agree with your examples. --Meillo (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Complete list of examples

Please modify this list to avoid growing the page indefinitely.

Improvement tentative of existing examples. ---Yvanoé (talk)

Case 1: A dedicated bakehouse that you have seen but you do not know if it still used:

Case 2: A dedicated bakehouse building that is still used:

Case 3: Historic bakehouse; building still exists, oven still present but not used anymore

Case 4: Historic bakehouse; building still exists, oven has been removed

Case 5: Historic bakehouse that is not maintained since a long time:

Case 6: Baking oven inside another type of public building

Case 7: Standalone oven, like horno, tabun oven, beehive oven, Kemence (építmény)