Proposal:Libraries beyond books and multimedia
| Libraries beyond books and multimedia | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Rejected (inactive) |
| Proposed by: | Imagoiq |
| Draft started: | 2021-02-18 |
| RFC start: | 2021-05-02 |
| Vote start: | 2021-06-09 |
| Vote end: | 2021-07-07 |
Proposal
New types of amenities, that expand the word library to other items than books and media, appeared since a couple of decades.
library of things and tool library are practicing loaning of tools as well for the former an infinite range of objects. Objects can include for example: kitchen appliances, gardening equipment and seeds, electronics, toys and games, art, science kits, craft supplies, musical instruments, and recreational equipment.
seed library are loaning seeds with the main goal to propagate them as much as possible. According to Wikipedia, the difference with a seedbank is that the seed library doesn't have a goal to archive or preserve the seeds. Due to the size of the lent objects, a seed library is more often a simple shelf inside a library of any kind than a standalone library, but they can be found as well in other places like communal spaces, churches, museums, etc.
Most of the library of things, seed library, or tool library have a similar model to libraries as they have an annual fee membership or even no fee at all, some have a fee per item. The concept has been mainly driven by non-profit organizations with an environmental or social cause.
Those types of libraries are totally independent of traditional libraries, but the items they lend are also reaching traditional one.
This proposal introduces:
3 main tags
Multiple secondary tags to better encompass hybrid libraries:
- library:things=yes
- library:tools=yes
- library:seeds=yes
- library:toys=yes
- library:bicycles=yes
- library:books=*
Add a new value to books=*
Rationale
A growing movement of the sharing economy
The map of localthings.org count more than a hundred of library of things and tool library across the world (and without being exhaustive; in Switzerland alone, there are 15 of them currently).
The map of seedlibrarian.com count around two hundred of seeds library across the world.
Aren't library of things and tool library redundant?
It is true that Library of Things contains also tools. In fact, the movement of Library of Things has been preceded by the "tool library". The term "tool library" has been used for the first time during the second world war, and the concept is nowadays recognized as a subset (limited to tools) or an "example" of the library of things, but many places focus on tool only so another tag is needed to be able to understand the intent of the place.
Generic wording and usage
Traditional libraries are more and more hybrid in the sense of material lending has greatly evolved since some decades from multimedia material, toys, games, seeds…tools to things. Some suggested that grouping all types of library under amenity=library should be considered, but this is not backward compatible and a lot of amenity=toy_library and amenity=bicycle_library are already mapped.
Moreover, the idea to use more standardized wording like amenity=object_rental or "borrowing centers" have also been proposed to avoid using "library" as it isn't incoherent etymologically. However, other key=value doesn't follow this schema and the usage of those word seems common nowadays.
Defining three new tags will not only fit the reality, but also emphasize the main goal of the place. Those tags should be independent and comparable to what amenity=toy_library and amenity=bicycle_library are to amenity=library.
Hybrid libraries
Some of those new amenities as well as traditional libraries are also lending things, seeds and/or tools. It's common that a traditional library or a library of things lend seeds. Therefore library:*=*, etc. may allow tagging with a greater flexibility meanwhile keeping the primary goal.
How places are currently mapped
Free-standing library are using tags with a wide diversity. This show that these kinds of places embraces many aspects and ideas and the need of tags to correctly map it.
Here is a sample:
Library of things
- amenity=library is used 6 times (e.g. Library of Things Maastricht in the Netherlands)
- shop=Leihladen is popular in Germany and Austria
- shop=catalogue (e.g. Share:Frome in England)
- shop=second_hand (e.g. Leila Berlin in Germany)
- shop=rental (e.g. Leihladen Innsbruck in Austria)
- shop=tool_hire (e.g. Crystal Palace Library of Things in England)
- amenity=library_of_things (e.g. KW Library of Things in Canada)
- shop=charity (e.g. Luula in Germany)
Tool library
- office=association (e.g. Minnesota Tool Library)
- amenity=community_center (e.g. Northeast Portland Tool Library in the USA)
- leisure=hackerspace (e.g. Toronto Tool Library)
- amenity=rental (e.g. Ballard Tool Library in the USA)
- amenity=tool_rental (e.g. Vancouver Tool Library in Canada)
- shop=doityourself (e.g. Station North Tool Library in the USA)
Seed library
Traditional library
No traditional library has been found with an additional tag to indicate the lending of things.
Are existing tag fit the use case?
As suggested by swiss_knight and Hendrikklaas, two current tags could be thought to avoid new tags:
- shop=tool_hire
- but it's limited to tools, targets professional audiences, and has a different economical model
- shop=rental (combined with fee=no)
- is a better fit, but the number of rental type could be infinite for a library of things and the word rent induce that a payment is made
Using Plural or singular on key=value
amenity=thing_library and amenity=tool_library follow amenity=toy_library.
library:*=* follow books=* (used on amenity=library).
Differences between library:books=yes and books=*
library:books=yes would only indicate that it's possible to borrow books as well. And books=* specify if the place lend only specialized books. For example, some tools library are lending books to learn how to use a tool and could be tagged like:
Tagging
If the library has the sole purpose of lending things, tools or seeds:
- Use amenity=thing_library or amenity=tool_library or amenity=seed_library as the main tag
- Add one or multiple library:*=*
amenity=seed_library should be used only if the place is clearly independent than the main place. For example, the place has its own address, website, etc.
If the library is traditional (main purpose is to lend books):
Tags that could be used with main amenity tags
- key:name
- key:network (e.g. Thingery network in Vancouver)
- key:brand
- key:addr
- key:website
- key:phone
- key:opening_hours
- key:wheelchair
- key:payment
Fee/Charge
- Key:fee indicates that a small fee has to be paid to use or that usage is free
- Key:charge describes the amount charger to use a thing/tool. (e.g. charge=€20/year + €1/thing)
Other services
- Key:repair
- Key:books : with the value handbook for example
- Key:workshop : with value fablab or repair_cafe for example (e.g. Oakland Tool Lending Library.).
Rendering
Any suggestions are welcome for amenity=thing_library, amenity=tool_library and amenity=seed_library
Applies to
Nodes 
and areas 
External discussions
- Help Openstreetmap - What would be the best tag for a "tool library"
- Talk:Tag:amenity=library - Discussion around tagging a type of library
- [Tagging] Mailing List - Discussion on fee for different material inside a traditional library
- [Tagging] Mailing List - Discussion around this proposal
- Borrowing Center
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page.
Voting
- Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
- Scroll down to voting and click 'Edit source'. Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:
| To get this output | you type | Description |
|---|---|---|
|
{{vote|yes}} --~~~~
|
Feel free to also explain why you support proposal. |
|
{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~
|
Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no. |
|
{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~
|
If you don't want to vote but have comments. Replace comments with your comments. |
~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.For full template documentation see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.
I approve this proposal.—-Dieterdreist (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. Rayleigh1 (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Rskedgell (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I suspect that we won't see much use of the tag, but there is a definite needed. Even someone in my local community was looking for a tool library. Glassman (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Although I have my doubts, I'm fine with adding amenity=tool_library and amenity=seed_library. ---- Kovposch (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --ForgottenHero (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Although I would love to use those tags, I’m still unsure about its use, especially working out the relation with amenity=library. I fear it would encourage some kind of scheme superposition (Public Transport anyone ?) and I would prefer a more strict approach such as defining library as a collection of things to be defined through library:* suffixes. --Lejun (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. I don't think the amount of top-level tags is useful in any way, e.g. the border between things and tools can't be defined easily. There should be one main tag and subtags to describe what is offered. Especially in case of the seed library - how is this a library at all? Seeds are being used and not returned after. The proposal doesn't address the relation to amenity=give_box either, which seems more fitting in case of seeds. --Mueschel (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)- I oppose this proposal. While I am happy that the proposal does not break backward compatibility by leaving amenity=library to books/media, I have similar concerns as Mueschel, we should not introduce new values for amenity in bulk. A more abstract object-lending tag would lead to better data structure, and the kind of objects could be subtagged as proposed. --Polarbear w (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Obyrnegps (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. What Mueschel said. --Stefanct (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Good idea! --Fizzie41 (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Tricky. These tags are in line with with amenity=toy_library, so that is consistent. I wonder how the no-voters would see the future of that one if this proposal offered one main-tag instead; deprecate it or treat as an exception? But then, why not allow for an amenity=tool_library as well?. Also, how do these tags fit in with amenity=public_bookcase? I've seen seed libraries in the form of a public cabinet on the side of a street as well. --JeroenHoek (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I think a more generic value (like e.g. amenity=lending_library) would work better as a top-level tag. --Kjon (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I also would like some clarification about the difference with amenity=public_bookcase and amenity=give_box but I guess these new tags might be useful. --H@mlet (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. The description, scope is very confusing and complicated. All library of "things" should be covered by one top level key, apart from a traditional "books only" library. The lending concept is not supported by all examples given like the already mentioned "seeds" library. The concept of a library, lending things which you return at no or period fee must be applicable. It's not because someone calls something, like a seed shop or stand a library, that it is actually a library by definition. This proposal does not address or describes that concept insufficiently and gives examples which could be essentially wrong. --Bert Araali (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Can you please clarify what are those examples and why there are wrong? And what can be added, that would make the concept more clear? How can this proposal be improved? Thanks Imagoiq (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- The example of the seed library seems wrong in my interpretation of what a library is. The proposal doesn't contain comprehensive list of criteria of what we should consider as a library. There is a description of the fee or for free concept but it's not sufficient to distinguish it from just commercial rental shops or organisations, who also use similar concepts. To me a library serves more community services, like non-commercially viable or interesting "things" in their collections but of historical importance, items belonging to the collection should be returned, since you borrow or lend them, the "things" or collection can be "consulted or consumed" at the library for reference and research etc... Just using the term "library" doesn't mean by defintion all of them are, but just a commercial strategy. These conditions should be agreed by the community to avoid ambiguity with other tagging schemes. As it stands today in my opinion all of them are variants of rental shops, not libraries. Secondly I don't like the many namespaced tags you create, what you actually do is store a value in a key and use that as booleans, not compliant with the data scheme of OSM. Use attribution keys with ; separated vlues instead or a different solution. --Bert Araali (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand that you don't like this usage of the word "Library", not that the examples are wrong (I'm just citing examples, I didn't invent all those concepts). To me, the fee justify the differences with rental shop. I don't think you can pay 50 $ a year and rent anything you want in a rental shop, but I might be wrong. What is toy library for you then? On "These conditions should be agreed by the community to avoid ambiguity with other tagging schemes", how can we progress on the topic, so? It seems a dead end right now! On "Secondly I don't like the many namespaced tags you create, what you actually do is store a value in a key and use that as booleans, not compliant with the data scheme of OSM.", for my knowledge can you please provide information and a link? I've tried your way until someone else said the opposite, so I don't know anymore. Imagoiq (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- The example of the seed library seems wrong in my interpretation of what a library is. The proposal doesn't contain comprehensive list of criteria of what we should consider as a library. There is a description of the fee or for free concept but it's not sufficient to distinguish it from just commercial rental shops or organisations, who also use similar concepts. To me a library serves more community services, like non-commercially viable or interesting "things" in their collections but of historical importance, items belonging to the collection should be returned, since you borrow or lend them, the "things" or collection can be "consulted or consumed" at the library for reference and research etc... Just using the term "library" doesn't mean by defintion all of them are, but just a commercial strategy. These conditions should be agreed by the community to avoid ambiguity with other tagging schemes. As it stands today in my opinion all of them are variants of rental shops, not libraries. Secondly I don't like the many namespaced tags you create, what you actually do is store a value in a key and use that as booleans, not compliant with the data scheme of OSM. Use attribution keys with ; separated vlues instead or a different solution. --Bert Araali (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- Can you please clarify what are those examples and why there are wrong? And what can be added, that would make the concept more clear? How can this proposal be improved? Thanks Imagoiq (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. What Mueschel said. --TonyS (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. What Mueschel said. --WambacherWest (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- This proposal has been rejected by the author before the end of the vote. It will be rewritten trying to be more compatible with general opinions.