Talk:Tag:sport=cricket

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How to map

Should the field (a large area) be mapped or the central strip between the wickets (usually called the pitch)? The main page does not say. If it is the central strip then the surface tag would reflect that central strip and not the, usually grassed, larger area. Warin61 (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

So for cricket the terminology goes - large area = ground ("a cricket ground"), strip = pitch (sometimes referred to as 'wicket'). The wiki does say that the ground is typically shared by Australian Football in the winter, so I would be putting the tag sport=cricket on the same broad grass area (typically oval) that sport=australianfootball is on. For the broader ground, the surface tag isn't super useful since both sports are always played on grass in their outdoor setting. However cricket alternates between 'turf' (the correct well maintained grass wicket) and 'hard wicket' (a concrete slab in the middle, which an artificial grass mat is rolled out over, or occasionally glued down). This information is mostly only useful for players as is drastically affects how the game is played.

I believe the above was posted by 'Freedomjosh'. Australian football is not only played on grass but also dirt .. particularly in the 'outback' where water is hard to find. Of course the players on these grounds try to avoid falling due to the abrasive surface. The cricket central strip surface appears to vary between the level of play, upper levels having a rolled surface of either short grass or clay. Warin61 (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I've amended it to say we usually map the ground/field not the strip/square/wicket. It may also be worth remarking about overlapping pitches : people tend to religiously map what is visible on aerial imagery. SK53 (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Cricket nets

This page suggests using "sport=cricket_nets" yet the corresponding wiki page explicitly states NOT to use that tag (though it doesn't say what to use instead). How about tagging with something like "leisure=pitch", "sport=cricket", and "pitch=cricket_nets"? --Casey boy (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Basically, ignore the warning, there are over 1000 uses. It's not perfect, but then that's not really the goal of tagging which is more pragmatic. A more serious issues is that we dont have a tag to mark the area of the square (which in my local cricket club has one artificial turf wicket to allow play when grass would be damaged). It's not unusual in aerial imagery to see the squares but not the outline of the boundary (for instance when the outfield is used for other sports in winter, see example below). For golf this issue was solved by having specific golf tags for such things, which avoids messing with the sematics of pitch. There is very limited usage of the cricket=* which looks mainly to be me mapping things after discussions like this one. Such a tag would allow more graceful to a single sport=cricket tag if desired in the future. Specific things I've tried are artificial or all weather wickets (inconsistently tagged) & squares, all with a leisure=pitch. Note that you cant rely on shape of nets because in larger cricket grounds there many be 8-10 nets together which would superficially look like a square, e.g., way 41793989. SK53 (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
+1 for ignoring the warning. A cricket ground is a much different beast to cricket nets and deserves it's own tag. Warin61 (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Photo Examples

What have the Photo Examples to do with OSM tagging? --DaveF63 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The photos show what is being mapped. They are there to assist people mapping objects that they may not be familiar with. Note it is normal to identify who you are and when you posted to your comments. Warin61 (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The 'pictogram' is irrelevant to OSM; the cricket positions are human & the cricket wicket is transient so not mapped. These don't help mappers, especially newbies, There's far too much gumpf in OSM wiki. --DaveF63 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)