I have a low-priority micro-mapping question. At the moment the wiki says that amenity=bench should be used on nodes and ways and shouldn’t be used on areas. Benches can be represented as closed ways in cases where, for instance, benches encircle a tree, as shown in this example: File:Bench and trees (1245397989).jpg - OpenStreetMap Wiki
So at the moment a closed way represents a bench with a hole in the middle. But what about cases where the imagery resolution is good enough to map big benches without a hole in the middle (see for example benches in Krakow’s Rynek where they can be seen using the 8-10cm resolution imagery)? In these cases it should be allowed to add area=yes to distinguish them in my opinion. Thoughts?
I have mapped a very small number of places to sit as closed areas with amenity=bench. My local university placed a lot of small stone podia in a new garden and I have chosen to interpret them as places to sit. A very poor picture (as I’d been in a wood earlier and forgot to change exposure):
With a rendering hat on, it’d be useful to know the difference. With an area you’d want the icon in the middle; with a closed way you’d want it on the closed way, especially if it was circular around a tree.
Certainly mapped long benches as lines e.g. a perimeter of half round pedestrian areas, one in particular is double sided, 1 side facing beach, other road / fountain area, sloped and loved by skateboarders. As area… fine with me when big enough to trace ,whatever tickles the micro mappers fancy.