User:Johan Jönsson/Workspace

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposed features/sea bath

outdoor categorized according to the body of water


These are of course rather coarse tags, and refinment should be done on each of them. I am imagining that a seawater pool at a non-bathable coast would be tagged leisure=pool_bath. While a tidal pool ata coast where people bath in the ocean at flood would be marked as a leisure=sea_bath if more than one body of water in the same area, choose the most prominent one or the one, the one the abth primary focus on. I f e.g. it is lake_bath with a small mud_bath and it is famous for the mud_bath tag it as mud_bath even if the lakepart is bigger.


discussion on maillist tagging 2011 discussion on maillist tagging 2012 OK, I have changed my mind, tagging stuff with general tags like Lesiure=bath isn´t the way things usually are done in OSM. My scheme demands several tags to say something vague like an outdoor public bath by the sea, this wont do, the way of the Map is to make specific tags for everything out there. The full List_of_baths will be broadcsted soon-stay tuned. /Johan Jönsson 18:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


Bathing spot at river

small recluse place along a river to take a bath

bath:outdoor= river

tagged as a node or a small area of water and closest land on the river bank.

Bathing establishment with sea beach

Organized public places with piers and/or beaches and large areas of lawns for sunbathing.

bath:outdoor= sea

tagged as an area of water and land, including the beach (if there is one) buildings, lawns , picnic_places (alternative tagging could be leisure=park)

Public beach

Public beach, maintained.

bath:outdoor= sea

tagged as an area of water and beach. Inside the area, the beach is tagged with natural=beach (doesn´t matter if it is manmade or natural, this is the tag for beach-like terrain)(alternative tagging could be leisure=beach or beach_resort)

Mineral bath

Mineral pools, with entrance fee.

bath:outdoor= pool (or spring or hot_spring or mineral_pool)

Outdoor bath establishment with pool

open-air swimming pool, with lawns around, entrance fee


tagged as an area of pool, lawns and buildings. Inside the area, the pool is tagged with leisure=swimming_pool. (alternative tagging could be leisure=swimming_pool or leisure=sports_centre)

Swim hall

A hall with swimming pools inside.


Tagged as an area of the building. (alternative tagging could be leisure=swimming_pool or leisure=sports_centre)

sports centre with pools

A sports centre with swimming pools outside and inside.

leisure=sports_centre, bath 

Tagged as an area of the building and included outside areas. Inside the area, the pool is tagged with leisure=swimming_pool. (alternative tagging could be only leisure=sports_centre)


Turkish bath


Tagged as an area of the building. (alternative tagging could be amenity=sauna, amenity=shower, amenity=public_bath?, amenity=bath?)

Water treatment/spa

Hydrotherapy establishment


(alternative tagging could be leisure=spa or tourism=spa or shop=spa?)

Vegetated landcover

Proposed Features/Vegetation cover

This is a proposal to tag vegetated landcover in a way so that one could use the FAO system of Main Structural Vegetation Domains (by di Gregorio and Jansen 1996)

trees:cover=closed/open/sparse shrubs:cover=closed/open/sparse herbs:cover=closed/open/sparse

A vegetated area should have all three of the above tags. "sparse" really means "sparse to absent".

From the FAO-paper: "Cover can be considered as the presence of a particular area of the ground, substrate or water surface covered by a layer of plants considered at the greatest horizontal perimeter level of each plant in the layer (Eiten, 1968)." Closed >60 %, Open 20% - 60 % Sparse < 20 %. "As herbaceous plants are seasonal in character, it is always assessed in terms of fullest development."

The three life forms trees/shrubs/herbs are supposed to be all that you need, they represent three layers and more information could be found in "general rules for classification". It is really straight forward.

European bathing water quality

EC Water Framework Directive.

an excel exist with the following data:

  • bathing_water:bwid=
  • bathing_water:water_type= sea/river/lake/estuary
  • bathing_water:sea_water=yes/no sea/fresh
  • bathing_water:status=compliant
  • bathing_water:quality=poor/sufficent/good/excellent or 0/1/2/3 or -/1/2/3

signs at every beach:

A shorter tagging: water:quality=poor/sufficent/good/excellent

On top-level the bathing spot could be tagged with

  • award:eu=0/1/2/3 or maybe award:eubathing=0/1/2/3

Every bathing spot large enough should have a EU-flag and a sign with the number of stars.

Awards and ratings

some musings on the subject

The hotel have 3 stars in the hotelstar-system.

  • The <Subject> have <Award> in the <Award_System>
  • The <Subject> have <Rating> in the <Rating_System>

It should be the same scheme whether it is called award, rating, classification, categorization or something else.

Rating is a classification, a relative estimate

Classification is systematic arrangement in groups or categories according to established criteria

Award is to bestow something as being deserved or merited

Awards feels like they are more of a singular event, only marked if you get it, while a rating suggests the presence of some kind of scale. Classification implies that the values are some kind of enumerable or list of values.


It looks apropriate to tag like this

  • <Award_System>=<Award>
  • <Rating_System>=<Rating>

with the possibility to use subtagging when in problem:

  • <Subject>:<Award_System>=<Award>

Maybe there is a need to identify the key <Award_system> as just a system for awards. It have been suggested to do that by using subtagging:

  • Award:<Name_of_system>=<value_of_award>

The <Subject> e.g. hotel, restaurant.. is given by another tag on the node and is not needed. In some cases there could anyway be need for subtagging/namespacing hotel:<key>=<value>

Existing tagging schemes

stars=* that simply sets stars=4. This could be interpreted as <Name_of_award_system>=stars and <value_of_award>=4

It is in wide use, probably on hotels. In some countries it is quite clear what classification-system that is used, but I guess that the situation could be more troublesome in some countries where several systems might coexist. If one wants to state which system, it could be done as stars:<system>=4 or <system>:stars=4 or <system>_stars=4

A preliminary proposal

The draft on the proposal is now at [[1]] the basic idea in the proposal is this:

  • <name_of_award_system>=<award> e.g. Travelers' Choice = Best Service
  • <name_of_rating_system>=<rating> e.g. HOTREC = Four stars

In some cases the award/rating system might not have a separate name, it is just known under the name of the organization that awards the award, then use the organization instead. With proper use of the wiki we could even use shorthand key-names. Anyway, try to keep it as simple as possible. There would be no need of the full official name of a award system, use an adequatly shortened name.

There are usually no "units" in the osm-values, e.g. HOTREC = 4 One might be tempted to do like this HOTREC:stars = 4 that is, subtagging the unit after the normal key

  • <name_of_rating_system>:<unit>=<rating>

I would argue that by giving the <name_of_rating_system>, the unit and scale should be implied, but I do not feel convinced about that.

A test

Lets try this on the famous michelin guide for restaurants.[2] My first question is, what are the name of this system. Is it guide_Michelin, guide_rogue_Michelin or the english Michelin_guide, red_Michelin_guide. All those are names on the publication that holds all the awards, the awards themselves are called michelin_stars

the "keep it simple"-approach would be michelin=3_stars the more formal would be guide_rogue_Michelin=3_stars

Furthermore, it turns out that there are also a hotel-award-system in the guide_rogue_Michelin. So the hotel could have 2 stars but the restaurant in the hotel have 3 stars. I would see that as two different award-systems: Michelin_hotel=2_stars Michelin_restaurant=3_stars

It is common practice to use subtagging, when a node shares several features: hotel:michelin=2_stars restaurant:michelin=2_stars

and without units in the value: restaurant:michelin:stars=2 I think this is starting to get irritatingly hard to remember, especially the order or the components of the key. But rember that the subtagging with "hotel:" and "restaurant:" is only needed when there are several features on the same node.

Adding award: as a part of the key it would be restaurant:award:michelin:stars=2


I like to take up the possibility to use a landcover-key for grasslands and other areas of low vegetation that are not scrubs. I am influenced by the FAO-landcover scheme and in short they suggest that one determines the dominating lifeform (tree/shrub/herbaceous). If the trees are more than sparse it is some kind of forest, if not and there are mroe than a sparse layer of shrubs it is some kind of shrubland and if not one of those it is herbaceous. (then they use a lot of more attributes to narrow it down)


Herbaceous is a bad word as it is rather hard to spell right. My guess is that it is a fancy latin word for herb-like, so maybe I cna use landcover=herb or landcover=herbs instead. I realte herbs mostly to flowers and herbal spicesand not soo much of grass. Apparently FAO means low growing vegetation that you could walk through, typically a kind of grasland. Herbs are vegetation that isn´t woody (another biology term)Scrubs and ljung are defined as woody. another approach would be to replace herbs with something more common like grass. landcover grass should sthen cover all herbaceous vegetation. that might be a problem in special nature where there are mostly non-grass herbs.

another issue is that FAO makes a difference between managed or cultivated vegetated landcover and other "natural or semi-natural" vegetated landcovers. One of the big good things brought forawrd in the landcover discussion have been the possibility to get rid of landuse=grass, especially for big managed lawns in urban areas. The reason they give for separating them is that the finer granularity of the classification follows different schemes depending on if it is managed, cultivated or if it is more like in the nature.

Not that there are missing tags to use for herbaceous areas, look at vegetation has a nice definition: "Natural areas where the vegetation is dominated by grasses (Poaceae) and other herbaceous (non-woody) plants. Excludes cultivated areas and wetlands." I would like landcover that does not care if it is natural or not and includes what FAO calls managed lands (lawns, parks as opposed to cultivated lands like farms that are harvested)