Proposal talk:Big bench

Difference to amenity=bench?

Sorry, but I didn't really get the difference between your proposed value and amenity=bench. I think the size only is not sufficient for coming up with a new tag for a least in general the same thing. width=* and length=* can be used for describing the bench's size. Or is it a bench on which you cannot take seat usually? Or what do other people here think? --Lukas458 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lukas,

It's not -just- a bench, it's a tourism attraction, people go there to take a selfie and sign a guests book.Francians (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Francians. If it is a tourism attraction, why not tourism=artwork or tourism=attraction ? --AnyFile (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Anyfile,

I don't think artwork is fine, cause you cannot climb on sculptures...

It's best of 3 between viewpoint, attraction and bench.Francians (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

These are definitely artworks & not benches in any meaningful way. tourism=artwork & operator=Big Bench Community Project. See how similar things have been mapped (e.g., London Elephants etc). SK53 (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

The operator cannot be big bench project, because it's not realized by them... Francians (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

There are many artworks and sculptures that are designed to be climbed on: Statue of liberty in NY City, but not the one in Colmar (too small). Oversized Dala horses in Sweden (they've steps next to them so kids can climb them). Oversized chairs in Germany (having a ladder to get onto them). Oversized miner's lamps containing a staircase to get up to "the flame". etc. IMHO we shall not introduce one dedicated key for each of them, as this fragmentation makes mapping as well as data consumption quite difficult, but instead have one general tagging showing "this artwork is designed to be climbed on"; AFAIK this does not yet exist, so IMHO this is what should be proposed instead of the very specific "big bench". --Schoschi (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The proposal does not specify they cannot be used as benches (due to their height?). If that is true then the statement that it implies amenity=bench is wrong. Many things have multiple roles ... tag each one of them, or at least the major one. There are at least a few sculptures that can be climbed on. So possibly tourism=artwork with artwork=bench and description=Big Bench??? Note Any artwork is a tourist attraction. If there is a view point there then that should be added as a separate OSM object. Warin61 (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with moving to tourism. I would however suggest not using artwork_type=bench for two reasons: 1) it lacks specificity - an artwork bench could be a particularly decorated (painted etc) bench, not just a giant bench and 2) other giant furniture exists (such as chairs) which should probably share the same tagging scheme. I would suggest artwork_type=giant_furniture and then have sub-tags for the type, i.e. giant_furniture=bench. Casey boy (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

On the project's website, the video shows people siting/lying on these big benches, and I observed the same behavior at "oversized furniture" that are not part of the project. Hence, IMHO amenity=bench seems appropriate, at least in the vast majority of cases. --Schoschi (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

One can site or lie on many things, that does not make them benches. Examples; a beach, a tree branch, a cliff top. These are not amenity=bench. Warin61 (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree, one can sit/lie on many things. In this case, the shape of the object is clearly a bench, these objects carry "bench" in the name, they can be used like a bench (sit/lie on) - hence, IMHO amenity=bench seems appropriate. For what reason do you disagree to that? :-) --Schoschi (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

A normal bench can be sat on with ease, without the use of a ladder, stairs. A toy 'bench' also carries the title 'bench' yet they are not usable as a bench. A bench should be readily usable, just as a toilet, a bin etc should be usable. Using the same tag for these would lead to people expecting a usable bench. Warin61 (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Also disagree with amenity. An amenity is for "useful and important facilities". A big bench/giant furniture is not a useful or important facility but instead fits much more nicely with tourism which says "places and things of specific interest to tourists including places to see...". Casey boy (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Many people disagree about using or implying amenity=bench for such features. If we need a more wide spread tagging scheme I may adapt my proposal to:

tourism=giant_furniture + giant_furniture=bench + brand=Big Bench

In this way, most of the example made by Schoschi, are suitable to be adapted.

May this be an acceptable compromise? Francians (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

+1, I'm also fine with tourism=attraction or tourism=artwork --Schoschi (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Italian who visited a couple here. +1 to tourism=attraction. I would also change from brand=* to operator*, Francians why you say "it's not realized by them"? But above all, I would suggest a ref tag like ref:bbcp=* since every bench is enumerate by the operator. There are 137 big benches as far, for example the Big Bench of "Castagnole Monferrato" city would be ref:bbcp=51 --Ivanbranco (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Operator is whom maintains it, the BBCP only keeps track of them. About the ref, unluckily is not possible to add it, since an import is incompatible with the copyright. Francesco Francians (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"only keeps track of them" isn't really true. The bench has to be approved by them, you have to follow some rules, to send them a form to be evaluated and accepted, they suggest you what colour to use, you have to pay them, they send you the blueprints and they also recommend you a carpenter if you don't know any. It's not really just keeping track. About the ref number, there are shops, restaurants and tourist offices who put a stamp in your "bench passport", they know the bench number, we could ask them and slowly adding the number by "local knowledge". So there's no need to copy it from their database. --Ivanbranco (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Widen the scope

I responded to the mailing list but will post here too.

I think this definitely belongs under the tourism key and would be fine with either "tourism=giant_furniture" or "tourism=artwork and artwork_type=giant_furniture".

However, I do think this proposal should widen its scope to include all types of giant furniture (giant bench is just one type). I have also seen giant chairs which would fit nicely under such a tagging scheme.

So maybe the proposal should be for tourism=giant_furniture and giant_furniture=* with tagging examples of giant_furniture=bench, giant_furniture=chair? Casey boy (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I may create a new proposal for giant_furniture and keep this one for the key:

giant_furniture=bench.

Probably I may also add the following tags:

- climb=yes/no

- ladder=yes/no

Cheers Francians (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Done: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/giant_furniture Francians (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

+1 for giant_furniture. Around here we have giant chairs as novelty tourist attractions: 1 2. Do you want to use this wiki page for the proposal, or the new one? This one has more history so it could just be renamed to match what's now proposed. --Jarek Piórkowski (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

- Dear Jarek, I don't have a strong opinion about this, I made the more generic one as a natural evolution of this. Probably big bench may stay behind as it now implements the widen tag giant furniture. Francians (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)