Proposal talk:Clubhouse

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deprecation of golf=clubhouse

What is the community's view on the proposed depreciation of golf=clubhouse? As mentioned by Brian M. Sperlongano, golf clubhouses tend to be run as a business rather than a traditional club.

But does this exclude them from this tag? Golf is included in the club key (club=golf) and there is no explicit requirement that a club or a clubhouse is non-profit. If a golf clubhouse is excluded, does this lead to other clubhouses being excluded too and, if so, under what criteria? Casey boy (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It was additionally noted that a clubhouse sits within a golf course, whereas a rugby club's clubhouse (for example) does not sit within the pitch. However no strong objections were noted during RFC. Casey boy (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

amenity=clubhouse wasn't realy "in use"

According to***/amenity/clubhouse&***/community_centre/club_home - amenity=clubhouse was not really "in use" - today amenity=community_centre + community_centre=club_home is used wide more often (1421 against 114). It is also not ininaccurate. And by more than factor 10 an etablished tag. --SafetyIng (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if I've used the wrong terminology. Yes, community_centre=club_home is now in more common but that is likely due to the fact that the wiki was edited to make it the recommended tagging scheme and to deprecate the amenity=clubhouse tag. The use of this tagging scheme appeared to only happened after the wiki was edited, before that amenity=clubhouse (or its other variants) was being used. Casey boy (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, I do think it is inaccurate, as I've explained in the rationale. Clubhouses are not communities centres. Therefore to add them to this tag is, in my opinion, inaccurate. Casey boy (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
This is pure speculation. Especially because of the incline (see day history) I strongly doubt that it really had such an impact - there were only first a good documentet tag to discribe cloubhouses. Else there were a more climb of the amenity-tag before.
And the argumentation "this isn't public" also matches a lot of club-rooms in "community centres" in parts of the world. They are also only opened to the audience of the club. So for me no conclusive reasoning. There is a tagging thats fit. There is no need for new Tag. There is an etablished. --SafetyIng (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The community_centre=club_home tag was not in existence before 2016 - based on the link you provided. However the Wiki page listing this as a tag was created in December 2015. The Wiki page did not follow usage, usage followed the Wiki. That isn't speculation. Casey boy (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, for clarity, a club room inside an actual community centre, is not the topic of this proposal. They can continue to be tagged as they are now. Casey boy (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

How can you talk about "deprecation of the amenity=clubhouse tag" when it did not even have a wiki page in the first place? Nobody deprecated it. Just people found a different scheme more convincing. Please also consider that OSM has a large number of communication channels, so when at the end of a community discussion something was documented in the wiki, this is not the source of a development. --Polarbear w (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It was listed under deprecated features until yesterday (when I removed it from the list): and is still listed as a tagging mistake on community_centre=club_home. Casey boy (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

club vs. clubhouse

As it stands today, iD and JOSM push the mapping of clubs with the key club=*. This is clearly shown by taginfo, where club=yes has 5 492 uses and club=sport (just to cite these two) has 13 341 uses. So, what would be the difference between club=* and amenity=clubhouse and how do you intend to counter the massive and actual use of club=*? --AntMadeira (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

club=* can be standalone or added to other amenities/buildings that aren't necessarily clubhouses. For example, club=* may be added to leisure=sports_centre or building=university. The amenity=clubhouse is designed to be used in conjunction with club=* to specify what the building/amenity actually is. In terms of countering, I don't think we need to in the first instance. It is not wrong to tag where a club is with the club tag, we're just adding finer detail by using the clubhouse tag (to define what function the building holds). Casey boy (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I understand that and I agree with this proposal. However, what I want to point is that if a usual mapper (be it with iD or JOSM) wants to map a club he/she will use the key club=* as it is done now, not anything else. --AntMadeira (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Distinction from a community centre: not convincing

In your proposal you claim a "clubhouse" would be distinct from a "community centre", and you cite the Wikipedia article. If you look at that article however, you find, among many other purposes:

  • "Community centres can be religious in nature, such as Christian, Islamic, or Jewish community centres, or can be secular, such as youth clubs."
  • (performs) "As a place housing local clubs and volunteer activities."

Thus the WP article confirms that a club home is indeed a special form of a community centre, as there are other specific forms, being "public locations where members of a community tend to gather". It does not make a difference who owns the facility, as we do not map ownership in OSM, and if the club is the only user/tenant in the facility, or if it serves more than one. --Polarbear w (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You actually prove my point. A community centre should "generally perform many of the following functions in their communities" (direct quote from that article). A clubhouse doesn't. It performs one. You have also missed the plurality of the one function that does match. "housing local clubs and volunteer activities. A club house will generally be for one club only. In terms of owner/operator, it does make a difference. As was in the original community centre proposal, as is stated in the Wikipedia article, and as you even quote, community centres are generally public (i.e. open to the public) and not private. Clubhouses are private. Casey boy (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
No I did not miss the plurality as you claim, I said it does not matter if a facility houses one or more clubs. The "many" in the WP articel does not mean it has to perform all of them in one facility. As for "open to the public" vs "private": First, we do not map ownership. Second, we have access tags to describe the level of openness. Third, community centres can be limited to the particular community, e.g. one for seniors would not accept juveniles, one for a religious community might limit that to members of that religion, or even the local members of that religion. So how does your definition of a club being "private" differ from that situation? How "private" is a club home of a large soccer club?--Polarbear w (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
To respond to each of your statements in turn:
1) "the WP articel does not mean it has to perform all of them in one facility" n
No it doesn't (and nor did I say it does) but it does say many. Many being much greater than one. If a clubhouse just hosts a club, that is clearly one not many.
2) "I said it does not matter if a facility houses one or more clubs"
Disagree. It does. If a facility is owned, or operated, by a single club and is used exclusively by that club, it is not a community centre. The Wikipedia page you highighted quite clearly states clubs. Not club. (and "many" of the other functions too)
3) "First, we do not map ownership"
Again disagree, what else are owner=* and operator=* for?!
4) "Second, we have access tags to describe the level of openness."
We do, but a community centre is for use of the community, it is not a private building whose access is restricted solely to a member of a club (or their guests). A highway=footway is not highway=trunk with access=* added to it!
5) "Third, community centres can be limited to the particular community"
They may well be focused on that community, yes, but they will also hold many of the other functions listed in the Wikipedia article. If they do not, they are not community centres. As I've said before community centre does not just mean a community (of some form) meets here. It is far more than that.
6) "How "private" is a club home of a large soccer club?"
This is a little ambiguous and of course there are always grey areas. However, I would suggest for a large soccer club, it would be tagged as leisure=stadium. If there was a specific clubhouse-like part of the stadium where only "members" (that could be the players, club support staff, or other paying members) could go, then that could potentially be tagged as a clubhouse. It would entirely depend on the situation. But what's clear is, it wouldn't be a community centre! Casey boy (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Building type

Your proposal suggests to remove a correct building type and replace it with the generic 'yes', which is a regression. --Polarbear w (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Not at all. The proposal says to map with building=*, for which the default is 'yes'. As per the discussion on the tagging mailing list, it was felt that 'clubhouse' is not a building type (as I explain in the definition section there is no unique style of building for a clubhouse). Instead the correct building type should be used in the tag. Casey boy (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I have added a little note to clarify this in the example given (in case the reader missed the earlier point). Casey boy (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Read your own proposal: "Formally deprecate other non-standard tags: [...] building=clubhouse" --Polarbear w (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Kindly read my response: "it was felt that 'clubhouse' is not a building type". As per the buildings OSM wiki page: "building tags are always about the building itself, not the current building usage or its user". Casey boy (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


While I have no idea whether amenity=* is better so far, *=clubhouse conflicts with another meaning of "clubhouse" as recreational facilities for residents in a housing estate, compared to *=club_home certainly home for a club. This would make a logical transition from community_centre=club_home. ---- Kovposch (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

A "clubhouse" has strong association with the building a club is using. You defined it as "A building used and operated by a club", looking like a building=*. A "club home" could include the entire area with multiple building and outdoor areas, matching with amenity=* ---- Kovposch (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion! As a native British English speaker, clubhouse is the word I'd immediately choose and wouldn't be ambiguous to me. However, it is always good to hear other people's understandings of the word. Would the recreational facilities not be tagged as a community centre? If club_home is less likely to be confusing, and gets support from other users, I'd be open to editing. Casey boy (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

POI on building versus node

From my understanding, this proposal requires that a club is mapped on the building that houses the club. This means the tag will be unusable in areas where POIs are tagged on floating nodes, notably the Netherlands. Similarly, buildings that house more than just one club will also become difficult to map in a standardised way with this proposed tag.

From my perspective, a solution for this issue could be to use the tag amenity=club, which currently isn't in use as the previous use has been deprecated. The building may still be tagged as a clubhouse, but preferably not in the amenity key. --501ghost (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

If the club is tagged on a standalone node, then the amenity=clubhouse could be added to that node if the node is moved to the location of the clubhouse. Alternatively, and this also applies if club=* is a large area (encompassing all of the grounds and facilities of a club), the amenity=clubhouse could be added to the building only, and the operator=* could then be used to identify it belongs to the club. I will update the proposal to reflect this usage. Thanks! Casey boy (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
there are 3 subjects in 1:
- a clubhouse occupies a whole building <> a cluchouse occupies a room/level of a building. in this last case, it is obviously wrong to put the building tag on the clubhouse object. therefore the definition should be changed into "a location (building, room, level) that is almost exclusively used, and normally owned or operated, by a club"
My understanding of a clubhouse is the complete and exclusive use of a building, rather than a room or building floor. If this isn't true globally, then yes we can adapt the proposal. Casey boy (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Based on your comment, I have updated the proposal. Casey boy (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- some clubs are mapped with an area with the whole infrastructure (clubhouse, ground, parking). this object is not appropriate for the clubhouse tag nor for the building tag. imho the landuse area of a club is outside this proposal, let's focus this proposal on clubhouse.
Agreed. Casey boy (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- node or surface it is another subject: a building/clubhouse with a node is valid even if obviously it is better a surface. same for a room (even if it is more difficult to establish the geometry of a room) Marc marc (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Also agreed Casey boy (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Casey boy, you're still promoting that an amenity be tagged on the building. This is considered malpractice in the Netherlands (and possibly other regions) due to a nation-wide tagging standard. Therefore, tagging amenities on buildings should not be explicitly promoted. I suggest that you limit the wording to "may be mapped either as a node or an area" without stating a preference. --501ghost (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, I think I understand what you mean. The background to this proposal is that it was explicitly about tagging the building in which a club is based - and this is why I've "promoted" tagging the building. A clubhouse is a building but, after consulting the tagging mailing list, it was felt that amenity=clubhouse is more appropriate than building=clubhouse since building tags should be about the buildings themselves rather than the usage. If local tagging practices separate buildings from amenities, we can do that - just add the amenity=clubhouse POI inside the building footprint. Does that make sense and does that fit with your tagging standards? Casey boy (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
For what you describe here, we have the key building:use=*, which is widely used. I think the tag building:use=clubhouse would suit your description/background better than a new amenity tag. --501ghost (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, I have not yet understood why you prefer calling it a clubhouse over a club, as the POI seems to be the club. The tag amenity=club is available for this use and calling it a club would solve the ambiguity between a building and an amenity. --501ghost (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
A clubhouse is a distinct feature. It is not the same as a club. A clubhouse is a building from which a club operates and may contain amenities such as meeting rooms, changing facilities, and a bar (for example). Not all clubs will have a clubhouse, and some clubs will have many other physical features beyond a clubhouse. The clubhouse tag would kind of be analogous to leisure=sports_centre rather than sport=*. Does that make sense? Casey boy (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
You say "A clubhouse is a building from which a club operates...". IMO that line would make this a proposal for a building rather than an amenity. See my above comment. --501ghost (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I understand your rationale but have to respectfully disagree. An amenity is defined as describing "useful and important facilities for visitors and residents". A clubhouse is a most definitely a useful amenity for its visitors. It would also be odd in cases where the clubhouse has a bar or cafe/restaurant in it to tag it as building:use=clubhouse, amenity=bar rather than amenity=clubhouse, bar=yes. Casey boy (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The proposal has been updated to make it clear that some regions do not mix amenity and building tags and that "floating nodes" for POIs can be used. Casey boy (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


Resolved: JeroenHoek (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The proposal looks like it fills a gap, nice! One thing I am wondering is if this means that documentation such as club=scout needs updating too. It now reads:

The venue of a scout group can be tagged as amenity=community_centre with community_centre=club_home for its type and community_centre:for=scout for the target group.

Am I seeing it right that most amenities that function as a clubhouse for a something tagged with club=* should become amenity=clubhouse? --JeroenHoek (talk) 07:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I think any documentation that uses community_centre=club_home for what is a clubhouse would need updating - assuming that the club isn't based inside an actual community centre of course. Casey boy (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Existing usage differs from proposal

Unfortunately I just came across this proposal as the RFC period ended. I'm apparently the most prolific user of this tag in the United States, having tagged about 73% of the occurrences here (16% of global occurrences) over the span of almost a decade, following the lead of another mapper in the U.S. However, I've been using this tag differently than how it has been defined in this proposal and amenity=clubhouse (which didn't exist until earlier this month).

To me, club=* is already sufficient for tagging a club's headquarters or event space. Sure, that can be called a "clubhouse", but the term in English has another meaning (sense 2) which is not covered by club=*: a kind of amenity found at golf courses, planned residential subdivisions (usually next to a swimming pool), and university dormitories (also called lounges). These clubhouses are open only to a certain group, but not necessarily a club per se. For example:

  • This clubhouse is open only to residents of the subdivision, who happen to be members of the homeowner's association. An HOA is nobody's idea of a club. [1]
  • This is a typical clubhouse for residents of an apartment complex.
  • A dorm lounge looks and functions similarly to an apartment complex's clubhouse, so I tag it the same way.
  • A clubhouse at a golf course may be operated by a golf club, but if the golf course is part of a golf club community (a residential subdivision interleaved with a golf course), then residents are just as welcome.

I think each of these cases is a poor fit for amenity=community_centre, because they aren't open to the public or even a demographic that could be precisely described by community_centre:for=*. Sure, I could technically tag each one as amenity=community_centre access=private, but "private community center" sounds dissonant in my opinion.

It seems that amenity=clubhouse has picked up in usage outside the U.S. in the past few years. Maybe whoever has been using the tag more recently intends it as described in this proposal. But if that interpretation has taken over, then I need to coin a new tag for clubhouses that aren't clubs' houses or community centers, inventing a new word in the process.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 09:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, so I think your point is the same as Kovposch was making about the term "clubhouse". I think this is quite an Americanism (or at least I don't generally hear it here in the UK but maybe I've just missed it) and unfortunately, I hadn't realised you'd used it so widely before. If this proposal fails, what term would you instead recommend?
With regards to club=*, presumably, for larger clubs you would additionally tag leisure=pitch or amenity=parking? In which case, presumably, you could see how it would also therefore be beneficial to tag the clubhouse (or whatever term you would use for it)? Casey boy (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, in American English, when someone says "clubhouse" to an adult, one immediately thinks of either a clubhouse at a golf club or an amenity that poorly imitates such a clubhouse elsewhere. (In the case of a typical subdivision, all it shares in common with a "real" clubhouse are couches, large windows, cheery paintings, and a vaulted ceiling, though I wouldn't stipulate those characteristics as part of a tag definition.) It may well be that British English has no equivalent term for this Americanism. The sense of a club's headquarters is by comparison much rarer, except to refer to an informal backyard clubhouse a kid set up with their friends from school.

If we suppose that club=* could be tagged on the entire grounds of a club's venue, then amenity=clubhouse might be a perfectly reasonable tag for the main building on the grounds. (This building might be an example of that, though the surrounding grounds happens to qualify as an amenity=social_facility.) Even so, I think the proposed definition would be too limiting; this is just a subset of what I think should be called a "clubhouse" but not a "community center" in OSM. In other words, I've been thinking of "clubhouse" as something that can be a micromapped feature rather than a POI in its own right.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 10:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. OK. We could consider expanding the definition to include the sort of clubhouses you're referring to but I do think we'd need to be clear on how they differentiate from a the community_centre=* tag. Would it simply be based on the fact that these are private (i.e. aren't for the wider-community)? Or some other differentiation? Casey boy (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I understand the hesitation to overlap with amenity=community_centre. Such a well-established, well-supported tag has something of an event horizon around it, doesn't it? I think private access is the bright line between a clubhouse (however defined) and a community center. Clubhouses are limited to a specific, membership-based group, whereas community_centre:for=* appears to distinguish between broader demographic groups. The alternative would be to endorse the trolltag combination of amenity=community_centre access=private. After all, the swimming pool just outside the clubhouse is also access=private. In my opinion, similar logic could justify a distinct tag for parish halls, but that's a discussion for another day. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 10:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
How about if we said "...normally owned or operated, by a club or other social organisation"? Would that work? That seems like it might match with your current usage too? Casey boy (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


If the definition starts out that generally, it should more heavily emphasize that the primary function is of an activity/event space specifically. After all, a club or other social organization can own or operate something that is definitely not a clubhouse, like these administrative offices. What differentiates it from an amenity=events_venue is that it's still an informal activity space even when it isn't being rented out. (It would be a lounge, except we don't have an established tag for those either.) I happen to think amenity=clubhouse shouldn't be the first tag a mapper reaches for when they come across a club's headquarters or event space, because club=* already fills that role. But if someone wants to micromap a large club's grounds, that's when a separate tag like this starts to make sense.

It's probably worth taking a step back to explain why I and the mapper before me started using this tag in the first place. It's very common for people to map a clubhouse at a subdivision or country club as a building=yes name=Clubhouse or name=Club House. I just started adding amenity=clubhouse as a nice-to-have structured representation, without any expectation that data consumers or editors would interpret it for any reason. In fact, the only use case I can imagine is to micro-optimize routing into a country club. I sympathize with folks who balk at splitting hairs about the various kinds of event space tags. The clubhouses I've been tagging are very much a "first-world problem" that don't even generalize to the whole English-speaking world, let alone globally. That's why I never put any effort into documenting my usage, leading to the present misunderstanding.

– Minh Nguyễn 💬 18:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to point that some club homes allow public access, to apply for private membership and public activities, or use their facilities and services. This means both access=yes and access=private could be expected. (of course they will have member-only areas) This is partially in agreement with "Private, non-club-related events may be hosted through hiring of the clubhouse, though this is not the primary function of the clubhouse and is at the discretion of the club or its management. Additionally some larger clubhouses may have facilities, such as a bar or restaurant, which the public can visit." in Proposed_features/clubhouse#Definition. While I may support this proposal, I disagree that amenity=community_centre + access=private is invalid. You don't need a "membership" to use such a facility in a housing estate, school, or any other similar space; except for being a resident or student. This contrasts with actual clubs in those neighborhoods or schools. ---- Kovposch (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Voting results

Voting on this proposal has now closed. The proposal was rejected with 13 votes for, 14 against, and 2 abstentions.

Reasons for voting reject:

Reasons for abstaining:

Casey boy (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on reasons for rejection

It is my opinion that adding community_centre=club_home to this tag changes the meaning of the tag (i.e. bordering on a Trolltag) but it is clear others disagree. This is a fundamental disagreement in the use of the tag amenity=community_centre that clearly cannot be resolved by tweaking this proposal.

  • The club=* tag is sufficient

The club=* tag is to "provide a key for mapping the location where clubs regularly meet". At first glance this seems like it therefore makes amenity=clubhouse redundant. However, this would be too limited in my view. The club=* tag is not specific and so is now being used to map the whole area where a club meets. For smaller clubs, i.e. located in one room or building, using building=* in conjunction with club=* perhaps implies a clubhouse. However, for large clubs (especially sports clubs), the club area might encompass multiple buildings, car parks, sports pitches, and various other mappable items. One of those mappable items is an amenity=clubhouse. The club tag is therefore not sufficient on its own but should definitely be used in conjunction. Additionally, I don't think, for example, we should add club=clubhouse to a building inside a larger club=* area. Using the same key for different but linked features seems like a bad idea.

There was also a note that "I don't think any kind of club tags are good" - which is difficult to respond to, seeing as club=* is an approved key.

This is a fair comment, the proposal included this because clubhouse was seen as an amenity rather than a building type. However, if a building was built as a clubhouse, then perhaps this value is indeed valid. Any renewed proposal will omit this deprecation.

  • Other

There were three "other" reasons for rejection - which have been responded to on the voting page.

  • Use club_home instead of clubhouse (abstentions)

Two voters abstained, suggesting that amenity=club_home should be used instead of amenity=clubhouse - due to some ambiguity around the term "clubhouse". Although this ambiguity does not exist for me, it's clear that the usage of this term varies across the globe and so perhaps club_home would be a clearer choice. It would also match with the current community_centre=club_home tag (which would continue to be used in actual community centres). Casey boy (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)