Proposal talk:Astronomy Observation Site

Verifiability

Seeing as one is supposed to map what is there this seems Problematic and might for that reason be better suited for these other sites you mentioned - Ferdinand0101

Would you mind explaining further what you mean? I am happy to add a test for verifiability purposes. There are several methods that one could use. Besides, this seems no more ambiguous to me than backcountry & impromptu campsites or unnamed viewpoints, both of which are supported already. I will go add a test (with some numeric values to be filled in later) and would you please let me know if that alleviates some concerns? --Gappleto97 (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure the thing in my opinion about this is not verifiability but subjectivity as some of ypu're Test's you outlind in Your Reddit Post are impractical for the generall Public(if even reliably testabel) " 2.There is a light pollution level of less than _ "

Upddate : the new Critera are definitlly better

I expanded further on the criteria to try and specifically outline how to test this. Does what I added make sense, and does it alleviate your concerns? --Gappleto97 (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it woud be best to remove the lightpollution criterea and just have the test be if significant objects are visible

I think I disagree there. The tests should be equivalent. If I see enough pushback on that front I will definitely remove it, but I think I would need a good argument without seeing heavy opposition. --Gappleto97 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

But if i understand it correctly the light pollution can only be meassured by amatures by looking at what significant objects can be seen wich woud make it redundant

I added some justification to the page, but the tl;dr is that there are a bunch of light pollution maps which may be eligible to use as a source. I wanted to list the equivalent metrics because if those are eligible resources then it would save users a lot of time in executing the test. --Gappleto97 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Dark Sky Sites

I'm aware that there are a number of dark sky sites in the UK which are well known to amateur astronomers (official site). I suspect that local astronomy clubs will use sites which are not generally accessible to the public (e.g., through agreement with local authorities or landowners). I'd suggest getting tags which work for dark sky sites as these are more likely to be verifiable in some way. SK53 (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me the best way to deal with that would be to tag it as access=private, since that would indicate "Only with individual permission". I am definitely open to also having dark sky parks tagged, but I don't know that that is in scope here. I'm happy to draft a proposal if you have any ideas on how to do it, though. --Gappleto97 (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Updated to include the site you linked --Gappleto97 (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)