Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add preset for visitor_centre #1369

Open
map-per opened this issue Nov 1, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Add preset for visitor_centre #1369

map-per opened this issue Nov 1, 2024 · 5 comments
Labels
new-preset waitfor-consensus there seems to be no clear consensus on this in the osm communtiy; this has to wait

Comments

@map-per
Copy link

map-per commented Nov 1, 2024

OSM Tag(s)

tourism=information + information=visitor_centre

How would you like this tag to see supported?

As a Preset

Label

Visitor Centre

Aliases

No response

Terms

No response

Link to OSM Wiki page

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Ainformation%3Dvisitor_centre

Status of the Tag

In Use

Usage of the tag

735

Replaces other Tag?

No response

Regional Tag?

global

Further Information

The name of the tourism=information + information=office preset needs to be adjusted as well to better distinguish between visitor_centre and office. The current "Visitor Center" name for office doesn't match the OSM Wiki definition.

@map-per map-per added the enhancement New feature or request label Nov 1, 2024
@Hufkratzer
Copy link
Contributor

From related active proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Top-level_information_tag :

Two tags that do not match other information=* values, information=office and information=visitor_centre, shall be reclassified as tourism=office and tourism=visitor_centre.

@tordans tordans added the waitfor-consensus there seems to be no clear consensus on this in the osm communtiy; this has to wait label Nov 3, 2024
@tordans
Copy link
Collaborator

tordans commented Nov 3, 2024

This sounds like we have should wait for consensus first?

In general I don't see any blockers, we just have to make sure to get the details right.

@map-per
Copy link
Author

map-per commented Nov 3, 2024

I opened #1379 to approach the issue from the other direction. The PR changes the name of office.

This sounds like we have should wait for consensus first?

I'm not really convinced that this proposal will be successful. Re-defining / prettifying the tagging structure in OSM is quite unlikely to be successful. I would add the established information=visitor_centre to the presets.

@Hufkratzer
Copy link
Contributor

This sounds like we have should wait for consensus first?

A new preset for tourism=information + information=visitor_centre would of course increase the number of uses and thus run counter to the proposal. I don't know whether the author (@quincylvania ) still wants to pursue the proposal at all and whether it has a chance; perhaps he can say something about it himself. Of course, you can still add the preset and change it later if necessary, then you'll just have had a bit more work.

@quincylvania
Copy link
Collaborator

My assumption is that the iD preset is called "Visitor Center" because iD uses American English and "tourist information office" isn't a common term in the US. I think the information=visitor_centre tag must have come into use later. I think fixing the label and having a different preset for Visitor Center is reasonable since these tags are supposed to refer to slightly different types of features.

As for the top-level information tag proposal, I am planning to open voting soon, but I don't think the iD presets need to wait. If the proposal passes then we can open another issue to update the presets. Please direct any discussion on the proposal itself to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Top-level_information_tag.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
new-preset waitfor-consensus there seems to be no clear consensus on this in the osm communtiy; this has to wait
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants