Proposal talk:Outdoor Screens

advertising=screen starting point

Resolved

1. advertising=screen is used for many different message=* that can be specified, not only commercial product promotions as "advertising". Does your amenity=cinema example show previews when it is not in use? This tagging affects that feature as well. As expected in Tag:amenity=cinema the tag should be used for the entire outdoor cinema, not only on the display.
2. The words "screen", and to a lesser extent "display" are ambiguous. For the former, it could be privacy partitions, insect mesh, or even projector screens. For the latter, aside from physical objects as exhibits, dot-matrix, segment, and flip-flap also counts. The "video wall" on Wikipedia you linked is better defined (and somewhat commonly used), even if the word may be not as elegant.

-- Kovposch (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

This tag seems very ambiguous My first instinct when seeing this on the mailing list was that it was for the screens that commonly enclose pools and other outdoor seating areas in mosquito prone areas. man_made=display_screen seems like a better starting point. I think consideration also needs to be made for integration with other tags for signage, many of these seem to be awkwardly wedged under the tourism tags. --InsertUser (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, wiki hasn't been working for me for days... regarding the choice screen as the tag value, I thought the same when writing the proposal - it's not ideal. I agree with User:Kovposch, man_made=video_wall would be better, what do you think User:InsertUser? man_made=display_screen repeats two synonyms and could maybe still be misinterpreted. Also, the amenity=cinema example was just meant to explain that the cinema should still be mapped as a or . i.e. no change to that. will updating the wording to make that clear --Kylenz (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I have updated the proposal to use man_made=video_wall instead. if you have further suggestions, feel free to ’unresolve --Kylenz (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I think man_made=video_wall is better. It may be a little inaccurate for things like drive in theatres but these are rare and probably not worth the ambiguity of a tag that might include them (or they can get another tag). --InsertUser (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

temporary

Resolved

"An LED wall on top of a fold-out container" - I would note something about permanence ("fold-out container permanently placed there"?). For features appearing just for days/weeks I would definitely discourage mapping them. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I've added a note about only mapping permanently placed screens. The example from the photo is the Auckland Live Digital Stage, which tends to be in the same place all year round. --Kylenz (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

changes

Resolved

Hi @Dieterdreist: and @Kovposch: I have made the changes you suggested, is there anything else you want to add? --Kylenz (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't hear back from either of you so I've restarted the vote --Kylenz (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

What about nodes?

As I mentioned in my vote on the previous voting, does a video wall apply only to lines/ways? What about points/nodes? It should be allowed to map these features as points, when a mapper isn't sure about the size, format or position of a video wall. --AntMadeira (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @AntMadeira:, I don't see any comments about mapping them as nodes on the original vote. You are free to map anything they way you like in OSM, see Any tags you like. So using a Node is fine, but this proposal strongly recommends that you use a Way, because a node is not as useful for data consumers like 3D map renderers --Kylenz (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

In my vote, I wrote "however the absence of reference to adding this as points is a no go for me". This was my reference to the absence of nodes in the proposal. I know that I can map "whatever I like", but since this is a formal proposal, I would expect something as basic as this would be present. It's an information many mappers, especially newbies, search when they want to map some new element to them. --AntMadeira (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry I misread that as "... the absence of reference to adding this points [to] a no go for me". And yes we can update it to say that nodes are allowed. but this will have to wait until 2021-08-23 since we can't edit the proposal --Kylenz (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)