Talk:Tag:tourism=wilderness hut

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wilderness huts without sleeping places

According to the page, a wilderness hut must have sleeping places. However, in France for example (specifically the Vosges mountains), there are many huts that have tables, a fireplace, cooking amenities and sitting places, but no real suitable sleeping place. Technically, you could sleep on the floor or on the wooden benches, but I wouldn't call that a suitable sleeping place. I would argue having a suitable sleeping should not be a requirement for the wilderness hut tag. --22:37, 3 November 2017‎ Creator13 (contribs)

I agree, there are also huts (bothies) like this in the UK which are unsuitable for overnight use but otherwise fit the definition of this tag. Maybe "required properties" could be renamed "common properties" or similar. On a related note the required properties of Tag:tourism=alpine_hut are also too strict and prevent it from being used more widely. --Lakedistrict (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that new tag may be preferable. At least for me there is a significant difference between place where one may spend night or not. Though maybe it should be solved rather by explicit tagging whatever spending night is possible? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a tag such as overnight_stay=discouraged or similar could be introduced? --Lakedistrict (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I miss completely the substance of the last two comments: the main purpose of a bothy is somewhere to sleep overnight. They just dont have specific sleeping places. You normally pack in food, cooking gear & a sleeping mat & a sleeping bag. SK53 (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes you're right SK53, I was going by the fact that the old version of this webpage ( said something along the lines of "unsuitable for overnight use" - however that information has now disappeared. This is the bothy I referred to in the comment above and presumed that there were other bothies like this which discouraged sleeping in them. --Lakedistrict (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I totally agree with you. I can give an exemple with Refuge Du Hinterbockloch. There is fireplace, bench table, etc for cooking. But no place to sleep. Maybe on the crappy floor. Do you find a solution for this.I understand that we cannot change the tag because all has been crated based on these required properties. So, my proposition is to create a new shelter_type where value could be:
  • rest_hut
  • day_hut
  • fireplace_hut
  • cooking_hut
  • any idea ?
And the required properties are:
  • Small building in the countryside
  • Fully closed (roof and walls)
  • You may find cooking material
  • Fireplace or stove
  • Normally free rent, open to the public
  • No permanent human presence
  • Table
What do you think about that? --Rammstan (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
+1 it seems a good idea to me. Not sure whatever fireplace or place to cooking should be taken as defining. For example one with only gas stove without a fireplace. Or with a fireplace, without space for cooking. Or one with both fireplace and place for cooking. Should all three get separate tags? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
"Normally free rent" - I would tag both paid and free with the same main tag and use fee=* to record this. I would instead require place to be open to general public. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

amenity=showers and amenity=toilets as separate points

Is it OK to tag amenity=showers and amenity=toilets as separate points within the hut? Currently page advises against this and advises to do this "if they are separate from the hut"Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Since these features are quite small and are a single building, I think the advice to use shower=yes and toilets=yes is good. It is also possible to use separate nodes within the building, but this seems unnecessary. --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)