Proposal:Basic hut

Basic Hut
Proposal status:	Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by:	Sletuffe
Tagging:	tourism=basic_hut
Applies to:	node, area
Definition:	"A basic hut is a remote building intended to provide basic shelter and sleeping accommodation."
Statistics:
Draft started:
Proposed on:	2009-08-01
RFC start:	2012-04-05
Vote start:	2012-04-20
Vote end:	2012-05-05

Proposal

"A basic hut is a remote building intended to provide basic shelter and sleeping accommodation."

Required properties :

• Remote building found in the countryside
• The access is usually restricted to foot, mountain bike or ski.
• Free rent, open to the public, but may require overnight fee in some country
• No permanent human presence
• You will find suitable sleeping places
• Fully closed (roof and walls)
• No fireplace or stove
• No reservation beforehand is possible
• Mostly made of steel
• Much smaller than a wilderness_hut
• Much colder than a wilderness_hut
• Optional owner access through restricted tracks might still be possible, also access by cablelift or helicopter.

Some examples:
Bivacco on the italian wikipedia
Biwakschachtel in the german wikipedia

This proposal is part of a set of tags for Proposed features/wilderness_mountain_buildings

Rationale

This tag is used 99 times at 2012-04-01 07:59 UTC

Examples

• 

  Basic hut build with steel

• 

  Basic hut build with stones

• 

  Basic hut build with wood

• 

  Typical outside

• 

  Typical inside

Tags

Applies to nodes or area (forming the building outlines)

Key	Value	Discussion
tourism	basic_hut	The main tag

Additional tags to discribe the equipment

You can increase knowlege of the location with optional tags.

Key	Value	Discussion
mattress	yes/no	Are mattress available

Other useful generic tags :

• ele=* elevation
• name=* name
• capacity=* sleeping capacity
• fee=yes require overnight fee
• description=* fill more information with text
• operator=* typically used to indicate huts owned or maintained by a specific organisation. E.g.,

Mountain Bothy Association, Österreichischer Alpenverein, administration of forest or national parks.

Applies to

Applies to nodes or area (forming the building outlines)

Rendering

or or

Features/Pages affected

While amenity=shelter can be used for any kind of shelter also not man-made, tourism=basic_hut has a specific meaning.

Proposed_features/Wilderness_hut
Proposed_features/Lean_to

Comments

See talk page

Voting

• I oppose this proposal. -- You read it well, I'm voting no to my own proposal, because I think Proposed_features/Wilderness_hut is too close to this one and should cover the cases described on this proposal (why not an additionnal tag)

sletuffe 15:42, 20 April 2012 (BST)

Like capacity=4, made_of=steel, fireplace=no,drinking_water=no added to tourism=wilderness_hut sletuffe 15:25, 23 April 2012 (BST)

• I approve this proposal.--Rudolf 16:31, 20 April 2012 (BST)
• I approve this proposal. FedericoCozzi 18:01, 20 April 2012 (BST)
• I approve this proposal. --Pedja 19:26, 20 April 2012 (CET)
• I approve this proposal. --Geri-oc 18:37, 20 April 2012 (BST)
• I approve this proposal. --Maxbe 18:42, 20 April 2012 (BST)
• I approve this proposal. -- Unless the "Fireplace or stove for cooking and heating" requirement in Proposed_features/Wilderness_hut is removed and relative information provided with a dedicated tag. --Kaitu 19:05, 20 April 2012 (BST)
• I approve this proposal. A generic hut with tags like cooking=yes/no, full_serviced=yes/no, shelter_only=yes/no/additional would be better, but these proposals should work, but they are restricted to later extensions. --Fabi2 19:39, 20 April 2012 (BST)
• I approve this proposal.--Kjon 12:29, 21 April 2012 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal. See comment by sletuffe. The difference to tourism=wilderness_hut is not properly specified. Alternatively, the existing amenity=shelter can be used for this, maybe together with shelter_type=bivouac. You can also specify the building type with something like building=box/hut/cabin/etc. or material=metal/stone/wood/etc. --Fkv 14:16, 22 April 2012 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal. I think the smaller shelters/huts (below alpine_hut) should be tagged as amenity=shelter and refined with attributes (a'la fireplace=yes/no), the proposed tags are neither really descriptive. --SKald 18:58, 22 April 2012 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal. Same opinion as SKald, the Biwakschachtel is a special form of a shelter with prefabricated components, there exists also small shelters made of wood/stones used in case of emergency (not restricted to the alps). --Marmoti 21:42, 22 April 2012 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal. Same reasons as above. All these difference variations of "shelter" are confusing to the mapper. Use "amemity=shelter" and add attributes to specify the details (whether it is open or fully closed, got a fireplace etc). --polderrunner 21:33, 22 April 2012 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal. Same reasons as above (just variations of "shelter", use "amemity=shelter" and add attributes to specify the details) -- Fichtennadel 07:58, 23 April 2012 (BST)
• I approve this proposal. --Extremecarver 08:04, 23 April 2012 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal. Proposed_features/Wilderness_hut is a better alternative --Jorisbens 08:23, 23 April 2012 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal., see user Fkv, SKald, Polderrunner, ... - a more general approach would be good here, like they explained. Quarksteilchen 18:03, 23 April 2012 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal., same as above. A general and meaningful tag is worth more than a thousand specialized tags, that nobody but a handful of specialists worldwide know. Lets stick to the principle: a general tag and attributes to refine it. --BorisC 23:43, 23 April 2012 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal. -- Gian Mario Navillod 11:59, 24 April 2012 (BST)
• I approve this proposal. I think that amenity=shelter shouldn't be used for wilderness buildings -- Gomatteo 12:40, 24 April 2012 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal. use amenity=wilderness_hut + hut_type=basic--Javiersanp 18:00, 29 April 2012 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal. Seem to be the same as tourism=alpine_hut--R-michael 15:58, 2 May 2012 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal. I oppose because this isn't sufficiently different from wilderness_hut. The only difference seems to be the absence of a fireplace and that's not enough to make it a separate entity. --Kfj 11:03, 4 May 2012 (BST)

Voting result

Voting is closed. 10 users voted "yes", 13 user voted "no". Proposal has reached the minimum amount of 15 votes with a majority disapproval.

3 user suggest to use tourism=wilderness_hut. 7 user suggest to use amenity=shelter. 1 user suggests to use tourism=alpine_hut.

Please contribute at Talk:Proposed_features/Basic_hut#Post_voting_usage.