Openstreetmap-carto: tourism=aquarium
What do you think about rendering tourism=aquarium, at least for the name?
I think it could be treated the same as tourism=zoo
Sample here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323967826
sorcrosc
All 24 comments
Makes sense for me in general.
kocio-pl
on 11 Jul 2016
I agree. tourism=aquarium should be rendered. Even if it is just with the generic dot.
Jotam
on 15 Jul 2016
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism=aquarium?uselang=pl - only 113 ways worldwide, in addition there are 132 nodes.
Seems to be a really rare tag.
matkoniecz
on 16 Jul 2016
Not enough uses for a new rendering, and it's not a shop so it wouldn't get a dot.
pnorman
on 16 Jul 2016
But why not treat it in the same way as tourism=zoo? Even if it is few instances, it's annoying NOT to find it when you look for it. And it doesn't do any harm to render it, does it?
Jotam
on 16 Jul 2016
sent from a phone
Il giorno 16 lug 2016, alle ore 20:39, Paul Norman [email protected] ha scritto:
Not enough uses for a new rendering, and it's not a shop so it wouldn't get a dot.
it could be seen as a variant/subtype of zoo and get a name in the same style...
dieterdreist
on 16 Jul 2016
sent from a phone
Il giorno 16 lug 2016, alle ore 20:24, Mateusz Konieczny [email protected] ha scritto:
Seems to be a really rare tag.
it's mostly a very significant feature, even if it's not occurring very often it doesn't mean it's a "rare tag" (because there's no alternative tagging method) but rather a rare (but important) feature.
dieterdreist
on 16 Jul 2016
Not enough uses for a new rendering, and it's not a shop so it wouldn't get a dot.
There have been positive feedbacks on treating aquarium like zoo, which seems reasonable (and easy?), and no negative one. Can you comment on that?
sorcrosc
on 19 Jul 2016
@pnorman: Please comment! Simply closing a topic when there is still need for discussion is not the best procedure for a community.
Jotam
on 22 Jul 2016
Any chance of revisiting this? According to Wikipedia and an internet search, there's only between 300 and 500 of them in the world anyway. So there will never be a large amount of the them mapped, but I still its worth rendering since they are major places. It could be either a dot or maybe someone could come up with an icon. A fish with some bubbles would be cool.
Adamant36
on 4 Jul 2018
there's only between 300 and 500 of them in the world anyway
I am tempted to classify it as result of stupid tagging scheme and continue to ignore it (it should be tourism=attraction attraction=aquarium, unfortunately nobody spotted it).
Something that appears less than 1000 times worldwide should really try to use both one of more general tags and more specific one, to make easier to support it.
And given less than 500 usages worldwide I would not add special icon for that.
matkoniecz
on 4 Jul 2018
Ok. Just thought id ask. I hadn't considered it might be a miss tagging thing. I still think there might be some things with naturally low numbers worth special rendering, but this could, likely, not be one of them.
Adamant36
on 4 Jul 2018
sent from a phone
On 4. Jul 2018, at 08:57, Mateusz Konieczny notifications@github.com wrote:
I am tempted to classify it as result of stupid tagging scheme and continue to ignore it (it should be tourism=attraction attraction=aquarium, unfortunately nobody spotted it).
that would be far worse. tourism=attraction is not saying anything meaningful, it is a way to drop a label without caring for semantics, or it is an importance flag when combined with other tags (more important than similar objects without the tag).
It also would not be suitable for aquariums that aren鈥檛 attractions in their area.
dieterdreist
on 4 Jul 2018
tourism=attraction is not saying anything meaningful
that is why it would be tourism=attraction + attraction=aquarium, not bare tourism=attraction
It also would not be suitable for aquariums that aren鈥檛 attractions in their area.
tourism=aquarium is not better for that
matkoniecz
on 4 Jul 2018
sent from a phone
On 4. Jul 2018, at 10:07, Mateusz Konieczny notifications@github.com wrote:
tourism=attraction is not saying anything meaningful
that is why it would be tourism=attraction + attraction=aquarium, not bare tourism=attraction
what would this change for this style? Either you render a label for any attraction (i.e. not specific to the feature, and people could abuse this for label dropping, where questioning the tagging might be difficult (how do you verify something is a tourist attraction?)), or if you check for t=attraction plus attraction=aquarium you have not won anything.
dieterdreist
on 4 Jul 2018
what would this change for this style?
This style (and all other data consumers) would not require special support for tourism=aquarium, support for tourism=attraction would be sufficient.
matkoniecz
on 4 Jul 2018
you can propose it on the tagging mailing list, but attraction currently is mostly used for animals in captivity and attractions in theme parks, like roller coasters https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/attraction#values
dieterdreist
on 4 Jul 2018
Il giorno mar, 03/07/2018 alle 23.57 -0700, Mateusz Konieczny ha
scritto:
there's only between 300 and 500 of them in the world anyway
I am tempted to classify it as result of stupid tagging scheme and
continue to ignore it (it should be tourism=attraction
attraction=aquarium, unfortunately nobody spotted it).
I consider tourism=attraction stupid tagging, unless it鈥檚 used for
things described by the attraction=* key, but this probably means
tourism=attraction is indeed unneeded.
Anyway a tourism=aquarium is not a thing like this as you seem to
think. It鈥檚 not a pool you can look at along the road, it鈥檚 a facility
where you go and that you visit like a museum. Eventually inside the
aquarium there is something to map as attraction=*
sorcrosc
on 4 Jul 2018
On the wiki zoo page, it explicitly recommends to use _tourism=aquarium_ and not a zoo subtype.
Zoo is rendered with its name without icon, it would not hurt to do the same for aquarium.
colour=tourism brown
polarbearing
on 4 Jul 2018
tourism=aquarium 683x
attraction=aquarium 12x
aquarium=yes 11x
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Atourism%3Daquarium - approved by voting 2014
polarbearing
on 23 Feb 2019
When this issue was discussed in 2016, the usage was cited with 113w+132n = 243 taggings.
When we have now about 700 mapped, that is probably all aquariums that exist worldwide.
@IVAN-RSM in #3691 - the reason we don't render a symbol for a zoo is that it has a scalable label, and we don't know yet how to handle symbols in such cases, see #3284.
Currently aquarium is rendered with its building label, if it is mapped as a building, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/18330093 as example.
It would not hurt to label any aquarium (node or way, independent of the building label) with the tourism colour like a zoo. Label scaling would not be necessary since an aquarium is rarely a large campus.
polarbearing
on 24 Feb 2019
When we have now about 700 mapped, that is probably all aquariums that exist worldwide.
I am not sure if this is all - look at this line:
I have heard interesting idea to estimate how complete is tagging for a given type of objects (probably on some SotM video): when it comes closer to 100%, the curve is asymptotically getting flat, and in last 2 years it looks more steep.
kocio-pl
on 24 Feb 2019
I have heard interesting idea to estimate how complete is tagging for a given type of objects (probably on some SotM video): when it comes closer to 100%, the curve is asymptotically getting flat, and in last 2 years it looks more steep.
I think there was a blog post or diary entry awhile back about shop mapping in the UK and how's its proportional to the amount of people mapping them. If I remember correctly it was based on theory about how new species of bugs in the amazon are found at the rate of entomologist looking for them. So you can't use the current number of known bug species as an indicator of how many actual bug species are out there. I could see how the same logic would apply to tagging. It probably tends to tapper off at the end because as un-mapped items becomes more sparse and harder to find mappers lose interest and move on to other things. Or they have just reached an "I'm done mapping this particular feature" threshold collectively.
As far as aquariums goes, on Wikipedia it says there are over 200, but its not more specific. Whereas the Association of Zoo's and Aquariums, whoever they are, says there are 233 aquarium's accredited through them. So my personal guess based on that is that there's probably more then 200 but less then 1000. Some places tagged as aquariums in OSM might be addons to zoos or something like that also. So the tagging numbers for them could be slightly over inflated or just more broad then normal.
Adamant36
on 24 Feb 2019
and how's its proportional to the amount of people mapping them
Yes, flattening of curve may mean that people run out of things to map or that OSM run out of people mapping things.
But steep curve indicates that neither of this happened, what indicates that there are still aquariums to map.
EDIT: for people using this tag - can you reply to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tourism%3Daquarium#plant.3F ?
matkoniecz
on 24 Feb 2019
Related issues
HolgerJeromin
路
3Comments
kocio-pl
路
4Comments
manfredbrandl
路
5Comments
d1g
路
4Comments
FTno
路
4Comments
Most helpful comment
sent from a phone
it's mostly a very significant feature, even if it's not occurring very often it doesn't mean it's a "rare tag" (because there's no alternative tagging method) but rather a rare (but important) feature.