Talk:Tag:tourism=picnic site

Why is this under tourism=*? To me a picnic site fits under amenity=*, and closely relates to amenity=bbq. --Elyk 05:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• In Germany a picnic site is mostly related to hiking trails. So for me it's tourism. But it's also amentity. --Falcius 08:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As a tourist I don't think a picnic site would be on my list of things to see. It doesn't sound like a tourist attraction. The hiking trail would be more worthy of some form of tourism tag, but then again anything could have a tourism tag applied because somebody might want to see or tour it. --Elyk 03:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

When I look at the other tourism=* tags I see similar problems with tourism=camp_site and tourism=hotel. So may be your definition is to close. Most people use tourism=* not only in your way for sights but also for touristic infrastructure. For this opinion have also a look at OSM tagwatch.--Falcius 08:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• In Germany a picnic site mostly consists a table with seats. In this case a barbecue grill is an aditional tag (barbecue_grill=yes). --Falcius 08:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Table and benches

Should it be taken for granted that anything previously tagged as tourism=picnic_site has at least the bench and table, if not specified by, say, table=no? I could fill some parks with picnic_sites (distinct locations, even), but users might be mislead into thinking there's tables everywhere... Retagging all/most picnic_sites added to date with man_made=table and amenity=bench seems somewhat wasted time and runs into trouble when there picnic site is under a amenity=shelter and has a amenity=bench. amenity=toilets are usually some distance away when present. Alv 12:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This still seems relevant to me, trying to add some public picnic tables (which should be picnic sites IIUC). You mention table=yes/no, but this is not documented on the page... Current usage in nl (based on a tiny sample) seems to be that tourism=picnic_site implies a table. OsmAnd (maybe also osm.org?) uses the picnic_site icon for both (on the main map, not when you select the poi). OsmAnd does great them as separate categories for searching, though. -- 18:35, 2 August 2018 Matthijs

I agree that there should be a table or some other permanent feature such as a shelter or benches, otherwise this tag could be used for any patch of grass. I've edited the page accordingly. --Jeisenbe (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I don’t agree, a sign stating “picnic area” would be sufficient. —Dieterdreist (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Render on OSM

Hello.

All nodes with this property are not displayed on OSM map.

Why ??

--ComputerHotline 15:59, 6 May 2012 (BST)

fireplace=yes

This suggestion seems unclear to me. Is it actually common for picnic sites to have proper fireplace, or are those using this tag intending "grill"? Joel Amos (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

leisure=picnic_table in Additionnal features ?

i'm surprised that leisure=picnic_table isn't in Additional features ? each table should be maped non ? --Vinber (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

definition gap

The infobox states: “ Use tourism=picnic_site, if it is a public place and includes several elements. Use leisure=picnic_table, if it is a picnic_table and only a picnic_table.” With this definition it seems “several elements” would be required for a picnic site, this wasn’t the case previously. A picnic site (e.g. declared by signs) does not require any facilities, it can be just an area explicitly set aside to have a picnic. Also sites with just one element are excluded as well with this sentence. —Dieterdreist (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is against the longstanding definition of this tag (since 2009), and I will remove the infobox if nobody speaks up to keep it. --Dieterdreist (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm against removing the infobox, but I acknowledge that there is a definition problem. Going back to some old definition is not a solution. I propose to improve the definition by adding to the wiki page.

I propose this improved definition instead: "A picnic site is a place intended for eating outdoors. It is either explicitly recognizable by local signage or implicitly by the presence of multiple features commonly found on picnic sites: e.g. benches with or without benches, fire pits, toilets, water tap, and/or covered pavilions. Picnic sites with visible boundaries should be tagged a an area, otherwise as a node. A single picnic table should not also be tagged as a picnic_site, because it already by definition a place for a picnic and double tagging it would be redundant."

"Intended" is better than "suitable", because picnicking doesn't have any real requirements. Any lawn or meadow is suitable for a picnic but it is surely not intended to be a picnic site. This prevents tagging of random parks and meadows as picnic sites.

Requiring multiple features prevents the tagging of single features as picnic sites. There exist countless single trash cans, toilets, benches and without having some requirements for an implicit picnic_site, mappers could just add picnic_sites nearly anywhere. I absolutely realize that the implicit definition has a gray area and I doubt that it is easy to find a bulletproof definition that suits every case. E.g. in public parks there are often benches with a trash can next to it. But just because you could have a picnic there, doesn't mean that someone intended to install a picnic site by setting up just a bench and trashcan. At this point we have to rely on the common sense of mappers. --ManuelH (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is not going back to the "old" definition, but undoing the edits that have changed the description of what we have in the database to wishful thinking, so that the definition is what it is. Regarding your suggested new definition, it is mostly ok, but overly prescriptive, my suggestion building on your proposal: "A picnic site is a place intended or commonly used for eating outdoors. It is either explicitly recognizable by local signage or implicitly by the presence of people having a picnic or presence of features commonly found on picnic sites: e.g. benches with tables, fire pits, toilets, water tap, and/or covered pavilions." As you see, I added "commonly used" and for benches I require tables in order to be helpful. I have never seen an picnic site with toilets but I guess somewhere they do exist. Along with your suggestions: the following sentence is overly prescriptive: "Picnic sites with visible boundaries should be tagged a an area, otherwise as a node." if boundaries are not clear, you should estimate the area, an area (even if estimated) is usually much better than a node as it allows to guess the size, shape, what is inside, etc.. "A single picnic table should not also be tagged as a picnic_site, because it already by definition a place for a picnic and double tagging it would be redundant." no, one is a table with benches, the other is a picnic site, these are two different objects, even if the table is the only physical representation of the site. To give an example, imagine a picnic site that is in a place since 1860 and since 2014 there is a table with benches. start_date of the site is 1860 and of the table it is 2014.--Dieterdreist (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I would support such a change in wording to close the existing gap! It is currently a poor and overly restrictive wording. Please change it ... I came across the problem through the new tag bbq=bring_your_own, which is likely to be common on grassy areas that have been designated as a "barbecue site" with a sign (at least in my area) – without any other features present. However, there is currently no definition of a main tag that is really suitable – neither amenity=bbq nor tourism=picnic_site (which I would consider more sensible and appropriate in such a case). Goodidea (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)