Talk:Proposed features/artwork type=maypole
No Rationale for this change
You've said "I find it sad that this symbol of a place does not appear on the map", but that misunderstands (a) that there are lots of different maps created from OSM data and (b) that individual maps are free to show (or not show) whatever they want.
- This is not true, because users have always, all the time, tagged everything possible to this object to render it. Me too and have been for 13 years since I joined. It's time to end this and I see only one way and that is to improve tagging. --Miche101 (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I also see no compelling reasons to change this tag. The proposed artwork-type tag seems strange as a combination with man_made and without the artwork tag, its value “maypole” would not add additional information beyond man_made=maypole and the art-related new tag would open a pandora box whether a specific maypole is considered art or not (IMHO generally not). All the hazzle that comes with changing a tag should at least be compensated by significant gain, which I do not see at all in this instance. —Dieterdreist (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- It feels as if you are trying to come up with a rationale just to be able to use tags that already render in Carto. A maypole probably shouldn't be mapped if it isn't there all year round already, and every village is bound to consider its own maypole as having artistic value. Besides, man_made=flagpole is fine in man_made=*, why not a maypole? --JeroenHoek (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, a rendering is desired and has always been achieved by other keys, that is the practice behind this key. Even if people here have already deleted the keys, it is changed again and again. This should give a meaningful way out. With us the maypole would also be a flagpole, you can raise a flag even if it is already standing without a ladder, and so on.. Would it also be interesting maybe Key:flagpole=yes? --Miche101 (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't need reasons for this, it's always been a practice. The whole time keys are used to render it. And think it's right a maypole is important. It's all about doing better. If the proposal is rejected, we will do as we have done for more than 10 years. Exactly why add highway=platform or highway=bus_stop we already have better tags? Exactly because to render it. --Miche101 (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- IMHO, it's quite bold to claim there is "No Rationale for this change" just because that one single sentence about rendering is not cathing in your eyes - there are quite some other rationales. --Schoschi (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Man made sounds about right
Coming from city, that does not partake in this frenzy, but where in a few close by regions such poles get mounted seasonally, mostly to cater for some incoming tourists, I strongly oppose to call them artworks. They may be touristic attractions, however. Beware, that attraction=* is a different game. So, man_made sounds about right.--Hungerburg (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- What is the difference? If I think of artwork_type = sculpture to man_made? In addition, the suggestion was to make your own type, so that it would also be clear what to expect. artwork_type=maypole you could at most add additional tagging so that it is clear how it is decorated. Would that be better?
- IMHO that is absolutely relevant to tell apart maypoles that are only man_made (the transient ones being of touristic importance only a short time thus not really suitable for tourism key) from the maypoles that have ongoing touristic importance and thus beging target of the proposal. --Schoschi (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- What do you think are the requirements that should be made? --Miche101 (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I am also not enthusiastic about the current situation. I also don't understand why you don't want to change anything in the current situation, because I don't see any problem why you couldn't do that. I'm slowly wondering why I support a project that is sometimes so ignorant and unwilling. I think I'll take some tools offline and stop doing some other stuff. Fix it yourself. --Miche101 (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Simply refine "be provided with many signs/objects" to include also carvings :-) And we better make it generic enough to include also other decoration types to avoid refining the definition all the time. So for example "The tree must carry notable and lasting, very elaborately decoration, for instance carry many signs, sculptures, flags etc. or be heavily carved. ". The criterion "notable" is not new but taken from Key:artwork_type. The criterion "lasting" shall emphasize the tagging approach is not intended for maypoles carrying transient deco like e.g. mainly blossoms and thus being of touristic importance only a short time. --Schoschi (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)