Proposal talk:Net

More info about reasons + Solid net for table tennis

Thanks for this proposal. I have several questions to better understand it. I don't really know the subject (or never observe that some fields don't have a net), what would be the reasons to not have a net? I wonder if a net could be as well not available during some season which would make it harder to properly map it, could it be the case? Perhaps, we could have another value for table tennis to have the distinction between "real" net and those that are "solid" (and permanent)? Imagoiq (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for raising these questions, I'll address them one by one:

• Missing nets is mostly something I know from public pitches. There might have been a net there many years ago, maybe it got damaged or stolen, who knows, but apparently the municipal department doesn't care about installing/maintaining nets on these pitches.
• Yeah, it's well thinkable that e.g. a net on a public beach volleyball pitch is removed during the months when it might snow. I guess according to Conditional restrictions this could be mapped as e.g. net:conditional=no @ (Nov-Mar). With that being said I am not sure how valuable that information is, assuming that most people don't want to play beach volleyball when it's cold outside.
• User:Martianfreeloader has already introduced net:material and documented it as an optional tag on sport=table_tennis. I'd prefer to limit this proposal to a simple yes/no tag. Further classification for nets could be formally introduced in a followup proposal.

--Push-f (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Too specific tag/proposal -> generic scheme for equipment of pitches

I think this tag is too specific while using a very generic term. Nets might also be used for e.g. fishing or as a falling protection. Should they use the same key? In my opinion we should go for a generic tagging scheme for all permanently installed sports equipment as there are soccer goals, basketball hoops, hurdles... Currently they all use some not well defined tags. I think they could profit from a common, namespaced tagging scheme. --Mueschel (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we have to distinguish between objects that are nets and objects that have nets. The former are currently tagged with barrier=* or man_made=* (e.g. barrier=net, barrier=shark_net, man_made=chinese_fishing_net, man_made=snow_net, man_made=rockfall_net) that is "net" occurs in the tag value. Using "net" as a key wouldn't make sense for these objects as far as I can tell. sport=table_tennis currently suggests net:material ... I don't think that such namespaced keys would make sense for objects that are nets either because then you could just use material=*.

I agree that the tags for sports equipment could be better defined but I think that's largely a separate issue and I don't think that introducing a common namespace would help with that. Please see Talk:Proposed_features/Pitch_features#Use_man_made=_instead for a related discussion.

--Push-f (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I only refer to things that have features here. Unfortunately this is not "largely a separate issue": As soon as we have one or two of these specific keys approved it will be close to impossible to introduce a proper designed scheme for various pitch features. --Mueschel (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I assume you also take issue with e.g. Key:hoops? So you'd rather have key:pitch:net and key:pitch:hoops? I fail to see how such a prefix improves anything if there are no other (as dominant) use cases for "net" and "hoops". --Push-f (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, 'hoops' is just another key that was created some years ago, never discussed, but now is widely used. We can't deny that there is some history to just introducing tags without looking at the grand scheme of things. But this shouldn't mean that we can't improve and learn from the past. Can you guarantee that there is no pitch equipment that can cause a conflict with some other tag? nets, goals, loops, gates, (chess) pieces... The list is just endless. A namespace would make it clear: whatever the name of the thing is, it is a piece of pitch equipment. --Mueschel (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the examples, I can now see the appeal of a clear namespace. I have updated the proposal accordingly :) --Push-f (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

External discussions

Not yet mentioned on proposal page:

• Feature Proposal - RFC - net for sports pitches, Tagging Mailing List, May 2022 --Hufkratzer (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the link to the page :) --Push-f (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)