Proposal talk:Extend water slides

Routing

How about drawing the path of the slide and tag the way as waterway=slide, bridge=yes etc? The water_slide key could be used to define additional attributes. RicoZ (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it could fit into the waterway definition, plus for the moment there are 464 attraction=water_slide and only 11 waterway=slide. And how is it related to routing ? Can you explain a bit more your idea ? --PanierAvide (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Some of the water slides are large enough that you might consider them as a way to get from point A to point B, and in larger water parks this can be of interest:). The way can also be used quite intuitively to describe topology including layers, bridges and tunnels - provides a lot of additional information over a simple POI tag. Waterway is maybe not ideal but close.. a tiny stream of water is an essential property of all water slides. Somewhat distinct are heavy freight and ship water slides which I suppose do exist as well and are closer to real waterways. Currently experimenting with http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/3296430 to see what works. RicoZ (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see the interest to use bridge, layer, tunnel tags to describe more precisely the superposition of slides, it can be useful and may be described in the wiki. But for the moment, and as I know, routing engines do not recognize both attraction=water_slide and waterway=slide (do they ?). It makes sense to provide routing using water slides, but I don't understand why do you want to change a tag by another one. Can't you use attraction=water_slide tag instead of creating a new one ? If you consider attraction=*, you can do in the same time routing for attraction=slide, attraction=roller_coaster, attraction=summer_toboggan, attraction=train... ;) --PanierAvide (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Did not want to replace one tag by another, rather define an additional way to describe the waterslides in more detail. attraction=slide is useful in overview maps, the detailed description using ways in detailed maps. Automatic routing is not my biggest worry, it may take some time till routing engines will catch up though some are configurable enough that it could work with some tweaking even today. More worried that rendering isn't working without tricks?RicoZ (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If I understand, you are proposing to put both attraction and waterway (or equivalent) tags to describe water slides. The goal of this is to make them visible in rendering but also routing, isn't it ? In that case, the information is redundant and waterway is added only to make slides visible on slippy map, and it looks like tag for the rendering. However, I may have misunderstood what you are trying to do. --PanierAvide (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to trick the renderer, rather want a more detailed description of waterslides than a single attraction tag can provide. Description as a way seems intuitive and one day may even provide real routing capabilities, in year 2020 when every kid has a waterproof OSM-capable watch. RicoZ (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I see what you want to do, and it's an interesting question. But I think this is a problem which is not specific to slides. As a comparison, we can walk through abandoned railways or man_made=pier, however these objects haven't a highway=path tag on them. It's a big deal and I haven't an answer to it. You may ask the tagging list to have more opinions about this ;) --PanierAvide (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The abandoned railways are indeed a bit tricky but do not see any difficulty tagging waterslides as some kind of ways, rather it seems very natural. I think even more straightforward than the frequent case of highways over waterway=dam. If possible I would rather keep the discussion in one place, if you happen to be subscribed to the osm-tagging list could you please ask the folks if they have an opinion about this? RicoZ (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I sent a message yesterday on the tagging list ;) --PanierAvide (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Swimming pools

Hello, I like that this topic has been proposed.

In Iceland many swimming pools have water slides, some are large (like the top values here) and some are small. As swimming pools are heavily used amenities in Iceland, comparable to café or bar in other countries, the tagging I'm thinking of needs to mark if there is a water slide of which category - to make it easier for families with smaller kids to pick.

The largest fall into current scheme but many are smaller and then there are the toddler slides, hardly visible on the map but important to know when picking a swimming pool for the family. --Stalfur (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, so the idea is to make possible to indicate if there are water slides directly on the swimming pool object ? Why not something like water_slide:type=yes/no/amount ? For example water_slide:racer=yes. And we can add a description for a new type "toddler slides", if you have some picture. --PanierAvide (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Inflatables

I think a tag for inflatables would be useful here. Some slides require (or allow) persons to sit on (usually donut-shaped) inflatables. For other slides it may be explicitly or implicitly prohibited.

Example: Water-Park-Slide-7955.jpg --501ghost (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I think something looking like access=* mechanism would do the job, for example slide_buoy=yes/only in complement of classic water slide tag ? --PanierAvide (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

"slide buoy" is definitely the wrong word for that (see images on Ecosia / Wikimedia Commons).

Ideally this tag would be applicable and universal for pools, lazy rivers and water slides, because pools and lazy rivers may also have rules for access with inflatables.

Continuing with that thought, would it be necessary to tag whether inflatables are provided or if people are allowed to bring their own? It may not be very relevant for slides, but for pools it may be. --501ghost (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not the best person for choosing a term, but as I understand (perhaps wrongly), inflatables cover all kind of "plastic filled with air" vehicle, from individual buoy to multiple persons boat. It could be interesting to distinguish which kind of inflatable a slide / pool accept. That way, we could complete current list of water-based vehicles and apply access scheme to water slides. For the bring_your_own matter, maybe we can go with the BBQ approach and use something like key_for_inflatable=bring_your_own --PanierAvide (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm also not sure about which term to use for the key. Specifying the types of inflatable things that are accepted may go too far for a tagging scheme. That's something people can read on the website of a water park / swimming pool or on a sign. "bring your own" doesn't clarify whether people are allowed or supposed to bring their own inflatables, so that also requires some more thinking. --501ghost (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)