Talk:Proposed features/Alpine hut (section)/Archiv1

yeah good idea, I am in favor of this proposal. For information, you could go to my website : www.refuges.info to find out more about what it is. Also, the data there is under a creative common licence and could be imported ( I'll check with users about the "nc" part of the licence that could be removed for the coordinates, name and elevation ) Sletuffe 17:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The voting period is however too early, and should be discussed first !

For example : a similar proposal exist here : Proposed_features/Shelter, and should probably merged with this one, with maybe additionnal tags. Sletuffe 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to bring this proposed feature up for discussion please feel free to do so. The shelter is a different concept - I already checked it out before proposing this one. --Laznik 16:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I just read the proposed feature page and am going to post this proposal to the list --Laznik 20:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I vote for a new key called refuge with values like refuge=shelter, refuge=alpine_hut, refuge=bothy, refuge=biwakschachtel and the like. Also see Proposed_features/Shelter --Unknown

• I support this proposal as is. MikeCollinson 18:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this proposal, in Italy there are a lot of Alpine hut, and they are different from Shelter. Lucadelu 1:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this proposal and I think we should consider to create a comprehensive set of tags for alpine buildings, trails and ski features. --EdoM (lets talk about it) 08:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support this proposal. I'm mapping in the Italian Dolomites and such tag is a necessity; the shelter is completely different from an Alpine Hut, so I think they must remain as separate tags --Alriva 14:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's necessary to distinguish not only against shelters, but also against tourism=hostel, amenity=biergarten, amenity=fast_food depending on level of service, accessibility to ramblers, proximity to arialway stops etc. Ipofanes 12:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I support this proposal. --Ale Zena IT 15:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I support this proposal. --alessioz 11:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I support the proposal for a new set of tags about alpine buildings. --ilrobi 21:00, 31 July 2008(UTC)

• I think we should make it clear if this tag is just for huts which are attended by some personnel or for unattended huts too. I've seen a lot of huts where you've got to grab a key down in the village before you can use them. So I think we should add
  • opening_hours to show the dates when the hut is attended (e.g. Apr 01-Sep 30)
  • a tag to show if you've got to ask for permission to use the hut beforehand (e.g. get a key)
  • contact information where to ask for permission

--Robberknight 13:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• What do you think about this idea: Every Alpine Hut that is public (means accessible for everyone without a key) is tagged as an amenity=shelter type=alpine_hut (because that kind of alpine hut is intended to be a shelter) and every Alpine Hut that is accessible only with a key is tagged as proposed in this proposal. The advantage of this way tagging an alpine hut would be, that you can easilier identify a refuge/shelter if you need one quickly. Because in the world are more shelters than alpine huts and because of this the symbol of a shelter will be better known. S.A.L. 07:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this distinction of hut and shelter. A better description and clear rules should be formulated for tagging one or the other before going to voting. --Nop 14:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• P.S.: I found a list with many (all?) alpine huts in the german wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Schutzhütten_in_den_Alpen. perhaps that's some useful information for the guys which are mapping alpine huts. S.A.L. 07:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• A hut is definitely not a shelter. But a shelter *should* be rendered sort of similar. It's obvious that a hut is a good shelter, btw. But I'm not sure if alpine_hut needs to be defined as such. maybe hut (or cabin?), with an extra: hut:type=alpine ? I'd say you could find similar things in the woods or on the coast, too. --Vegard 11:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• This proposal needs to be more generic. In Norway we have cabins owned by Turistforeningen (DNT), which is similar, but don't really fit the alpine_hut term. I support working more on a hut:type=* scheme. --vibrog 08:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• I support this proposal "as is" and like to move to voting period. We could later add additionnal tags after discussion about :

opening dates

kept or not

fire place or not

...

But one step at a time, lets accept it first Sletuffe 16:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)