Talk:Tag:sport=scuba diving
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Merging other Pages
Please merge this pages to scuba_diving:
- Tag:sport=diving
- Proposed_features/scuba_diving
- Proposed_features/scuba_diving2
- de:Switzerland/DiveSpots
and also the corresponding discussion pages. Thanks, --Markus 18:37, 18 July 2011 (BST)
Translation
Please can somebody translate this page to German? Thanks, --Markus 08:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Icon
We are looking for specific diving-icons for:
- amenity=scuba_diving_center
- shop=scuba_diving
- etc.
Best is SVG. Thanks for help! --Markus 13:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Dive spot
- ...
Diving center
Air fill station
Diving shop
Diving school
- ...
...
Merging
Merged with:
- Tag:sport=diving
- Proposed_features/scuba_diving2
- and parts of Proposed_features/scuba_diving and de:Switzerland/DiveSpots
--Markus (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Divespot : sport=* non-physical tag
sport=scuba_diving => Divespot does not work. There needs to be a tag like leisure=divespot. For example right now if I want to tag a diving club that's club=sport + sport=scuba_diving and obviously that's not a divespot. --AndiG88 (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- So sport=scuba_diving should be left for diving spots? RicoZ (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- We can't do this, it wouldn't be consistent with the other sport=* tags. However we should keep it documented that it was used in the past by some mappers as a diving spot. It seems there is a more detailed scheme on DE:Switzerland/DiveSpots --Jgpacker (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- The first thing I read in DE:Switzerland/DiveSpots is sport=scuba_diving is a divespot. Unfortunately I have no clue what it means "non-physical tag"? RicoZ (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Non-physical means that it doesn't describes a place. It describes an attribute of a place (in this case, the sport practiced there). Basically, we can't restrict the usage of sport=scuba_diving only for diving spots. I can't read german, so I can't say for sure what the page I linked above says, but I saw it also describes a key called divespot=* --Jgpacker (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- The first thing I read in DE:Switzerland/DiveSpots is sport=scuba_diving is a divespot. Unfortunately I have no clue what it means "non-physical tag"? RicoZ (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- So applying it to a beach or rock should be fine but not to a node without any other attributes? divespot=* in that page is proposed to mark particular underwater points of interest such as walls, caves, water tubes with depth and other attributes to create an underwater map. "parking" somewhat doesn't fit into this scheme. sport=scuba_diving was supposed to be the divespot marker to be displayed at lower zoom levels. RicoZ (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- The problem of tagging sport=scuba_diving in a single node without other tags is that you can't guarantee it's a place for diving. It may be a scuba diving sport club, scuba diving shop, or something along these lines. Though in this kind of context (in an underwater map), I believe it would be guaranteed. --Jgpacker (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- The overview of sport=* seems to be quite clear in the meantime that it should identify the actual sport sites and not shops clubs or whatever else? If so than I don't think the actual situation is too much of a burden for scuba_diving - the default meaning should be a dive spot and the other meanings will be obvious from other attributes or as last resort from the name. RicoZ (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that an object with sport=scuba_diving and no other tags is very likely to be a dive spot, and if other tags are present, then they should be analyzed too. Cheers --Jgpacker (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- So it would be a good idea to fix the introduction of this article to say "sport=scuba_diving" should be used only for dive spots, especially as the description already lists amenity=dive_centre and shop=scuba_diving which would be much better for the other purposes? RicoZ (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Done: sport=scuba_diving is a diving spot. --Markus (talk)
Snorkeling?
Is snorkeling supposed to go under scuba diving as a type? If so, I only see a listing for "apnoe" which I've never heard of--is that an acronym? non-English?
- Apnoe is from Greek and is used for diving holding your breath so it is not a good match for snorkeling. I think it would be ok to add separate entries for snorkeling to scuba_diving:type:*, perhaps surface_snorkeling and advanced_snorkeling? However both apnoe and snorkeling actually contradict the meaning of "scuba" so I am not sure how much sense it makes to lump all this together. RicoZ (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- I guess if there is more interest in tagging snorkeling, it will get dealt with in a better way. For now, I separated out snorkeling on the list on the main page. People might also be using the amenity=dive_centre tag, and not tagging specific scuba diving types on those. Neuhausr (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
"Snorkeling" you can do everywhere - even in the bathtub or swimming pool. I recommend not to use it in combination with scuba_diving. (ok, same for scuba_diving, but...) --Markus (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Current
I suggest to precise scuba_diving:current=*
by scuba_diving:current:speed=#: speed of the maximum current in knots.
--Markus (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Depth ranges
Current values used for the depth tag do seem to be mostly integers only, without units. I assume we are following the same process as for Speed_limits (values in meters, except otherwise stated). My question is mostly related to dive spots where the feature of interest (wreck, cliff, ...) will start at a certain depth range, all the way down to max depth of the feature (eg. 36m to 80m for the "HAVEN" a wreck close to Portofino, IT).
Currently I would assume :
0. scuba_diving:depth="average depth" combined with scuba_diving:maxdepth=*,
issue: we still lack the minimum depth information.
Alternatively we could use:
1. scuba_diving:depth=min/avg/max or min/max (or what ever separator is more common)
issue: not explicit, scuba_diving:maxdepth=* becomes redundant
2. add a scuba_diving:mindepth=* and combine with scuba_diving:depth=* and scuba_diving:maxdepth=*
My guess is that data consumers would work best with #2
--Billyonthemountain (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Differences between underground scuba_diving:type:* ?
What are the real differences between :
| tag | count |
|---|---|
| scuba_diving:type:cave=yes | |
| scuba_diving:type:cavern=yes | |
| scuba_diving:type:cave=speleology | |
| scuba_diving:type:cave=sinkhole |
--Pyrog (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is a problem from using the ambigious and redundant *:type=*. You can see all sorts of values mixed up under scuba_diving:type:*=*. A "sinkhole" is a kind of cave. "speleology" would be diving for the purpose/function/content for cave science, similar to "archaelogy" and "biology". Now I'm no diver: "cavern diving" refers to the overhang related to a cave, very shallow and close to the entrance, so that there's daylight and a visible exit; "cave diving" is deep into the cave within -- dark, maze-like, and very confined space -- where you are surrounded all around, more than only overhead. -- Kovposch (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Ambiguity of Tag:scuba_diving:type:=*
In my opinion the possible values of scuba_diving:type=* are often ambiguous. This table summarizes the values and things I believe are conflicting:
| Value | Problem | Possible solution | |
|---|---|---|---|
| training | May conflict with scuba_diving:type=pool. | Is similar scuba_diving:type=intro and depends heavily on the diver so I wouldn't tag this. | / |
| wreck | No | / | |
| wall | Strange type of dive spot, most places i know that qualify for this tag are old quarries. | Maybe use scuba_diving:type=quarry if it's an old quarry? | |
| archaeology | May conflict with type of dive spot. For example what if the spot also is a scuba_diving:type=wreck or scuba_diving:type=cave. | ? | |
| biology | May conflict with type of dive spot. For example what if the spot is a scuba_diving:type=wreck with special marine life. | ? | |
| attraction | Not really if artificially created underwater environments are meant. | / | |
| ice | No | / | |
| river | No | / | |
| high | Is this a type of dive spot or just a property? | Maybe add scuba_diving:surface_altitude=* to tag the altitude (from sea level) in meters or something alike. This is useful since decompression is influenced by the air pressure at the surface which is related to altitude. Furthermore, many dive computers allow you to set the surface altitude. | |
| rocks | Not really a "type" | Perhaps use something like scuba_diving:soil=*. Note that surface=* is ambiguous since surface in scuba means the water surface most of the time and that the tag should allow values such as stones, ooze, sand, ... which surface=* doesn't. | |
| reef | No | / | |
| cavern | What's the difference between cavern, cave and speleology? | Use one of those values, scuba_diving:type=cave seems the clearest to me. Or decide on the differance. | |
| cave | What's the difference between cavern, cave and speleology? | Use one of those values, scuba_diving:type=cave seems the clearest to me. Or decide on the differance. | |
| ooze | Same as rocks | Same as rocks | |
| sand | Same as rocks | Same as rocks | |
| gravel | Same as rocks | Same as rocks | |
| scrap | Not clear (for me at least) what is meant by this. | ? | |
| boat | What if this place qualifies for scuba_diving:type=reef or scuba_diving:type=wreck? | Use scuba_diving:entry=* to make clear this spot is only accessible by boat. | |
| drift | Not really a type, conflicts with scuba_diving:type=reef, scuba_diving:type=wreck and scuba_diving:type=river quite often. | Don't we have scuba_diving:current=* for that? | |
| cold | Conflicts with scuba_diving:type=ice. | ? | |
| lagoon | No | / | |
| sharks | As this is an animal that could be seen on the spot, I wouldn't call it a type. Also it conflicts with scuba_diving:type=reef or scuba_diving:type=wreck quite often. | Another tag for commonly seen animals? Or just don't tag the animal at all since they moving creatures (we wouldn't tag a wildpark with elephants as wildpark:type=elephant or do we?) | |
| bigfish | Same as sharks | Same as sharks | |
| ambiance | If nice surroundings are meant, it's quite subjective and perhaps shouldn't belong on a map | Don't map at all | |
| pool | No | / | |
| night | Could conflict but there are dive spots that are mostly used at night since during daytime there is little interesting to see. | ? | |
| children | May conflict with scuba_diving:type=pool or other values. | As this is additional info about a spot, a designated tag scuba_diving:children=yes/no may be helpful if this occurs often. | |
| apnoe | (note: isn't really scuba!) | ? | |
| snorkeling | (note: isn't really scuba!) | ? | |
| intro | May conflict with other values. | As this is additional info about a spot, a designated tag scuba_diving:intro=yes/no may be helpful if this occurs often. | |
| speleology | What's the difference between cavern, cave and speleology? | Use one of those values, scuba_diving:type=cave seems the clearest to me. Or decide on the differance. | |
| orientation | Not clear what is meant by this | ? | |
| photography | May conflict with other values. | As this is additional info about a spot, a designated tag may be helpful if this occurs often. | |
| handicap | May conflict with other values. | As this is additional info about a spot, a designated tag scuba_diving:handicap=yes/no may be helpful if this occurs often. |
Therefore I propose to limit the scuba_diving:type=* to the following values:
| Key | Value | Description |
|---|---|---|
| scuba_diving:type=* | wreck | A dive spot on a wreck. |
| attraction | An artificially created underwater environment specially created for diving. (For example Cancún Underwater Museum) | |
| ice | Where ice diving is the main activity. | |
| river | A dive spot at a river. | |
| quarry | An old quarry. | |
| reef | A natural reef. | |
| cavern | A spot for cavern diving. (In the diving world there is a difference between cavern and cave diving: example source) | |
| cave | A spot for cave diving. (In the diving world there is a difference between cavern and cave diving: example source) | |
| lagoon | A dive spot at a lagoon. (If one of the other values is more specific, use that one) | |
| pool | A deep pool designed for scuba. (example) |
This is just my view on the matter, please reply with arguments for your standpoint if you disagree. --Lowiecode (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- As with other tags, it's best to be more specific than *:type=* entirely. For your selection, some groups of values still seem to be not mutually exclusive, eg a wreck/cave/attraction inside ice/quarry inside river/lagoon (ignore the impossible combinations). I would also guess one can do some cavern diving in cave diving spots. "If one of the other values is more specific, use that one" may not be the best idea. They may be described as a POI (first group), water environment (in between), water body (last group), etc. For river and lagoon, there may be redundancy with the natural=water area enclosing it.
- For scuba_diving:children=* and scuba_diving:handicap=*, if there won't be mutually exclusive values or that different spots can be mapped separately, scuba_diving:for=child and scuba_diving:for=disabled could be a more familiar sub-key. It shows the target group meaning more. *:children=* and *:handicapped=* may be confused with legal restriction tags.
- Is scuba_diving:intro=* supposed to be a difficulty (scuba_diving:difficulty=*), or could there be intro spots to higher difficulties (eg intro to a challenging spot) and different environments (intro to cavern and cave) as well?
- Does water current necessarily imply the suitability of drift diving? Again as a non-diver, I would guess obstacles or chaotic water flow may preclude drift diving.
- scuba_diving:current=*, as well as scuba_diving:access_easyness=* (Also subjective? Or is it about prominence and visibility?) and scuba_diving:difficulty=* use an inferior style of a numbering system, which is not favored in protect_class=* for being unreaded and random. Similarly, the worded values in smoothness=* (and maybe trail_visibility=* is unspecific, with some suggesting to use individual modes. Is there an international standard for these? Like sac_scale=* and mtb:scale=* (STS) or mtb:scale:imba=*. This would improve verifiability, although it is still up to individual editors to rank, if no official rating has been published.
- As for other keys not addressed by you, especially scuba_diving:dangers=* should adopt hazard=* (or at least scuba_diving:hazard=*).
- ---- Kovposch (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- 1. I get your point, the fact that the values are still "not mutually exclusive" must indeed be addressed. However for the time being, it may be helpful to advise against using values other than the selection so at least types such as bigfish or gravel are not (newly) tagged anymore.
- 2. The scuba_diving:for=child and scuba_diving:for=disabled is indeed a good solution for spots especially equipped for children/disabled people.
- 3. & 5. To my knowledge there is no uniform difficulty system for scuba divespots. However I am a CMAS diver which are in the minority worldwide, perhaps SSI or PADI have a broadly used system.
- 4. Water current does not imply the possibility to a drift dive but making it a type of divespot is a bit strange since it is a dive technique (which simply is not possible everywhere).
- --Lowiecode (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- 1. Yes I agree with that. What I see is compared to the 208 scuba_diving:type=* instances, there are 1015 scuba_diving:type:*=* instances, not to mention 29 scuba_diving=* and 114 sport:scuba_diving=* instances. It can already be simplified to scuba_diving:*=* and scuba_diving=* if this usage is to continue.
- 3. This is really a more difficult question. I know you all have diver certification levels, which is more about restrictions (eg need to diver with instructor), at most it's a maximum (eg diving depth limit, cave penetration distance). There's no readily available difficulty rating, overall or for specific regimes.
- 4. My thinking was, in view of the 39 scuba_diving:type:drift=* instances (strangely meaning a drift diving spot as you rightly pointed out), a tag eg scuba_diving:drift=* will show drifting can be done explicitly.
- ---- Kovposch (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Is there anyone with another view on this divespot matter? If not, maybe we can cleanup sport=scuba_diving so it no longer contains the ambiguous tags (scuba_diving:type=*) of DE:Switzerland/DiveSpots and return to the relative simplicity of Proposed features/scuba diving2 i.e.
Tag Description sport=scuba_diving Scuba diving +name=* Name of the divespot (This is what you write into your logbook not the lake/sea it is in). +scuba_diving:divespot=yes This is a divespot +scuba_diving:depth=* Typical depth divers normally go (i.e. depth of an attraction, wreck, ...) +scuba_diving:maxdepth=* Maximum depth for this place
- If needed and if a consensus is found first, this can be extended with for example:
Tag Description scuba_diving:surface_altitude=* Water surface altitude in meters above sea level. This is useful for divespots in the mountains since decompression is influenced by the air pressure at the surface which is related to altitude. Furthermore, many dive computers allow you to set the surface altitude. scuba_diving:entry=boat Entry only possible by boat scuba_diving:entry=shore Entry directly via shore scuba_diving_entry=pier Entry via pier/jetty scuba_diving:hazard=surfers Hazard due to surfers on the surface scuba_diving:hazard=harpooning Hazard due to spearfishing activities scuba_diving:hazard=net Hazard due to lose fishing nets scuba_diving:hazard=rockfall Hazard due to falling rocks (often in old quarries) scuba_diving:type=wreck A dive spot on a wreck scuba_diving:type=attraction An artificially created underwater environment specially created for diving. (For example Cancún Underwater Museum) scuba_diving:type=pool A deep pool designed for scuba. (For example Nemo33) ... ...
Unclear scheme with regards to filling
Tag:amenity=dive_centre, Proposal:Scuba_diving2 and Tag:shop=scuba_diving mention the following tags with regards to filling:
| Tag | Usage count |
|---|---|
| scuba_diving:filling=* | |
| scuba_diving:air_filling=* | |
| scuba_diving:nitrox_filling=* | |
| scuba_diving:trimix_filling=* | |
| scuba_diving:oxygen_filling=* |
However Tag:shop=scuba_diving and Tag:club=scuba_diving mention amenity=compressed_air which according to its page "is used to map a device to inflate tires/tyres". Furthermore, Tag:amenity=dive_centre states that compressed_air=* could be used to indicate its availability while Key:compressed_air also seems oriented to inflating tires.
What is the current opinion on these tags and should they perhaps be removed from these pages in favor of scuba_diving:*_filling=*?