I encountered a standalone aviary in a park near a restaurant. It’s probably around 20 m² and houses a couple large parrots. I’d like to tag it as zoo=aviary, but it arguably is not a tourism=zoo, so specifying that would be strange in my opinion.
How should I tag it?
Edit: (I had originally written aviary=zoo above, but of course meant zoo=aviary.)
Hi
I understand the hesitation. Still, this is how an aviary is currently tagged. At least the German wiki says so and my local standalone aviary is tagged in the same manner.
Happy mapping
Silversurfer83
Do you mean zoo=aviary?
Yes.
tourism=zoo + zoo=aviary
Alright, then I’ll map it like that. Thanks for your help!
And I meant zoo=aviary, yes. Mistyped.
This is bad. zoo= was originally an attribute for =zoo (still what most are, at 74%), not a feature. =aviary referred to what the =zoo has, which makes up 41%. There is already attraction=animal , with 21% used together (24% for zoo= ). https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:zoo#Is_key:zoo=*_now_able_to_standalone_in_a_tourism=zoo-area?
Tag:zoo=aviary - OpenStreetMap Wiki There was a question about how small can a =zoo be https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:zoo=aviary#Is_example_correctly_tagged?
zoo=petting_zoo was voted to be for =zoo . =safari_park and =wildlife_park don’t make much sense as features either. Proposal:Petting zoo - OpenStreetMap Wiki
I would consider attraction=animal + building=aviary , at 221 instances more numerous than the 211 standalone zoo=aviary. While not very much a building= (known common issue as in =digester and =slurry_tank ), this at least tries to describe the structure, not diluting zoo= . or giving wrong impressions as a =zoo . building=aviary | Tags | OpenStreetMap Taginfo
I would definitely not tag a single cage with few parrots as a zoo
Agreed.
Similar to the question of how to tag individual aquariums.
How would you distinguish an aviary in a zoo from a standalone faciility with “a couple large parrots”?
Implicitly, the zoo aviary would presumably be mapped inside a larger zoo area.
Do we need to be explicit? If so, I was wondering if we could have something like a man_made=bird_cage tag. But that’s not really in use and the obvious question is then what’s the difference between an aviary and a bird cage?
Size? In which case, we could just tag the dimensions.
But people have aviaries at home too, so I don’t think bird_cage for all non-zoo cases is right.
So not sure! 
by mapping it within zoo area
right, or man_made=aviary, no need for a zoo
I have no ready technical solution for this. It would likely require some preprocessing. Though if I would be making map style I would likely show both aviaries in the same style.
Similar question applies to “how to distinguish restaurants in zoo/theme park and outside” or “how can I style path next to motorways differently” or “how can I distinguish in map style between path that is shaded and one not shaded” or “paths in forests” or “how can I show differently forests on islands” etc.
Repeating geometry info with tags seems to be not viable in general.
… only a couple of votes from the taginfo jury for that one, but it would actually work.
From a tagging (and hence also a desired rendering) perspective they are like aquariums: different if they are “a destination themselves” rather than “a small part of a larger destination”. With current tagging we don’t have an easy way to distinguish, and as noted here I got away with it on this map because all zoo=aviary in the areas that I’m interested in making a map for are part of zoos or parks or similar. The larger feature in that last example, Bird of Prey and Mammal Centre is mapped as tourism=zoo but not zoo=aviary. Had it been, I’d have had a problem.
Both of the preprocessors that I linked to operate without access to a geospatial database; in the first case because it is a preprocesor used before loading into a database and in the second case because there is no database in that vector tile process.
Generally speaking, we don’t tag different things in OSM with identical tags.and expect consumers to parse “where it is” by loading into a geospatial database in order to derive other information. As an example, we tag defibrillators with explicit information about whether they’re in a building or not.
… only a couple of votes from the taginfo jury for that one, but it would actually work
I think I will add a historic=aviary tag here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370170876/history
attraction=animal disused=yes doesn’t make a lot of sense to me
Please don’t create a historic= for everything, especially when it’s not historically significant. It can be disused:attraction=animal , which would be applicable to all animals. If the building=aviary is not being used now, it can have disused=yes added.
Please don’t create a
historic=for everything, especially when it’s not historically significant.
What do you mean by “significant”? Significant for whom? Historically significant could mean related to famous people or events, is this what you are asking for?
This is the aviary in question, how can I find out whether it is significant?
So your method creating every historic= feature possible? How is historic=aviary better than making use of man_made= / building= =aviary with disused=yes ? historic= doesn’t replace man_made= / building= either. Your historic=aviary doesn’t offer much extra benefit.
A significant part of historic= is used simply because there are no other features, eg from =memorial , to =wreck . Some are used differently, eg building=castle inside or around a historic=castle . There are only 73.8k historic=building (contributed by a jump in ~20k instances in 2016 from possible mass adding), comapred to 107.5k historic=yes + building= , which is used to "add the historic significance of the objects described by other tags. ".
On the topic of aviaries, the Wiki has clear instructions that an aviary in a zoo is to be tagged zoo=aviary and a “standalone” aviary (not in a zoo) is to be tagged tourism=zoo zoo=aviary. This is in contrast to bigger bird parks, which are to be tagged tourism=zoo zoo=birds.
This tagging does allow us to distinguish between aviaries that are a destination themselves (they are the ones that have tourism=zoo) and those that are not.
But it does mean that the average tourism=zoo in OSM is 11,800 square metres but the average tourism=zoo zoo=aviary is only 164, smaller than a tennis court. (It’s always hard to tell what came first, the advice in the Wiki or the data.)
If there is agreement in the forum that this is a bad idea, and aviaries shouldn’t be tagged tourism=zoo, then should that be documented in the Wiki page? People who just want to know how to tag an aviary are much more likely to find the Wiki page than this discussion…
