Proposal talk:Scuba diving2

Hi why did you do an other scuba_diving site? Wouldn't it be better to use only one proposal?

I would also like to differ between a place, where you can enter into the water (sport=scuba_diving) and special spots inside the lake/sea (divespot=name). Because with this, we could build underwater maps für dive locations. Tric 22:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you think, about adding divespot=* (name) in addition to sport=scuba_diving for a special spot inside a lake and only sport=scuba_diving with another physical tag for a place entirely dedicated to the diving?

ok. For me the the tag sport=scuba_diving is what I write in my logbook. With the tag divespot=* we could map everything else inside the water (and perhaps also entries, exist, routes and even parking places for the cars). Just have a look at the Swiss Diving schema DE:Switzerland/DiveSpots

The only thing I consider to change next is, using a key for every entry, because you can have multiple kinds of a diving variations at the same place. And it is perhaps easier to have separate keys instead the semikolon ";".

Example: scuba_diving:type = wall;ooze

to

scuba_diving:type:wall=yes

scuba_diving:type:ooze=yes

Tric 00:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

level is irrelevant tag

level=* Level of difficulty of the dive site (1 single, 3 difficult) This tag is not relevant here, because level=* describes vertical position of an object. Surly 11:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok i may use scuba_diving:level=* .. what do you think?

What about scuba_diving:difficulty=* instead of the level? Tric 22:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Both of them are good, but difficulty is much better wording. --Surly 12:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep agree to scuba_diving:difficulty=* ... i'll change it when the vote is over ?

Isn't level (or difficulty, for that matter) a very subjective thing? A carribean diver will find cold water troublesome, and a quarry diver won't like currents. I think it's more important to note typical conditions, such as currents and visibility. --JDub 13:01 2 April 2011 (UTC)

@JDub yes it is a subjective thing. But it depends on the place where you map it. When mapping a cold water place in a lake, then it's clear that this is cold water and therefore much more complicated for a warmwater diver. But due to the fact, that these places are normaly on different locations than at the sea it should be ok. Just let the mapper tag who know the place very well. For example: Deepness, walls, nets, strong current, ship etc are just not easy places for diving.

I do not like to tag the visibility, because where I dive they change to much over the season. Have a look here: http://www.swiss-divers.ch/index.php?option=com_visibility&task=show&Itemid=45 (german)

If the visibility is always the same: Do not hesistate to tag it ;-) Tric 20:00, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Btw instead of using scuba_diving:filling=yes I would prefer to support the amenity=air_filling proposal: Proposed features/air filling Please also have a look and compare to DE:Switzerland/DiveSpots

What do you think? Tric 22:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sooooo conveince of amenity=air_filling... it's still in proposal (stuck?), and seems to be really scuba specific...