Request for Feedback: Photopoint Proposal - tag the shooting position, the prop or both?

Help and support
1

Hi everyone,

About a year ago, based on discussion in How to tag a Photo point?, I drafted the proposal for tourism=photopoint: Proposal:Photopoint

Since then, several mappers have started using the tag in the wild, and there is even consumer support on mapy.com (formerly mapy.cz) (see an example here), which encouraged me to revisit the proposal and consider finally submitting it for a formal vote.

However, one key conceptual issue has been holding me back, and I would really appreciate community feedback before proceeding.

The current proposal states that tourism=photopoint should be placed at the location of the photographer/camera, by analogy with tourism=viewpoint that marks the location of the viewer.

But in practice, the location of the photographer/camera is rarely fixed: it can vary depending on scenery, composition, and focal length. Because of this, I am now inclined to think that the location of the photopoint prop should be tagged instead, possibly in addition to any other tags that the prop may already have (such as like tourism=artwork, tourism=attraction, amenity=bench or playground=swing), as it represents the photopopint’s verifiable physical feature.

On the other hand, there are cases where the photographer or camera position is physically marked, for example by a “stand here” platform, a painted marker, or a fixed camera/phone holder (see this comment for an example).

Probably the best approach would be to propose tagging for both locations (the photographer/camera and the prop), but I am unsure about the most appropriate tagging scheme for this situation. I would like to avoid overcomplicating things and proposing an unnecessarily complex scheme for such a simple and intuitive feature.

I’d be grateful for your thoughts and suggestions.

1 Like
2

Suggestions:

  • tourism=photopoint for frame, or decorations (something that isn’t useful for other purposes), with optional photopoint=*
  • photopoint=yes bench, swings, that is also a photopoint, in addition to main feature.

In both cases, location of actual structure should be mapped, in case of tourism=viewpoint physical structure and viewing location is the same, in case of photopoints, physical structure and model location is the same.

3 Likes
3

I would map place of attraction itself, like it is done for tourism=viewpoint

so, in this case: location of the photopoint prop

for case like How to tag a Photo point? - #4 by OSM_RogerWilco I guess that you could map it as an area or treat this marker as photopoint prop or locate point at bench

putting it multiple times for single POI seems to be the worst solution

3 Likes
4

I think mapping the physical thing is best. So for these, mapping the thing/place where people sit/stand/pose to be photographed makes the most sense.

As for when there’s a dedicated sign/bench for the person taking the photo to sit/stand, I’m not sure I would bother mapping this unless it also served another purpose…

2 Likes
5

Isn’t the actual photo point (like from where the picture is taken) up to the photographer? It would heavily depend on the gear used and the composition of the picture. It’s usually not the case that there is o lyrics one possible location. So you can only verify the location of the object.

1 Like
6

trait-de-cote-scaled
trait-de-cote-scaled1920×2560 768 KB

Here the place where to take the photo is defined, what you photography is (slowly) moving (the coastline).

1 Like
7

Well, there are multiple possible things here. One could be indeed the “photo frame” itself. It should be mapped (somehow), obviously. But note e.g. sign “I love ” - I wouldn’t consider this a “photopoint” at all, it’s just an artwork. And honestly, I don’t even think of those photoframes as “photospots”. What I think of are following things:

image
image1500×1401 293 KB

image
image969×1400 163 KB

image
image1920×1080 364 KB

image
image390×280 52.8 KB

…and many more others, which are IMO in 99% reflect recommended location of the photographer (you stand in this point and make a picture of surroundings).

And also note, there is just no such thing as “location of the photopoint prop” - it’s just surrounding nature in many cases. No any “prop” exists there at all.

I personally tag such things with tourism=viewpoint as it really reflects what it is. Add the corresponding name/ref/website, but that’s still a viewpoint at the end of the day. See one of examples I tagged myself this summer Node: ‪Photo Spot #8‬ (‪12943372465‬) | OpenStreetMap

1 Like
8

Not all, photopoint:camera_mount= can be used

Some examples from this mount company

As there were comments about using photopoint= directly instead of photopoint:prop= , it could further be separated into =photo_prop vs =photographing_spot / =photo_shot_spot ?

9

What should =viewpoint be used for though? Top-left Disney example is outside a theater facade. There’s no “view”, and they aren’t called “viewpoints”. It should not be used for those. The wiki definition is “with a good view of surrounding” too.

10

So solution may be:

  • tourism=photo_spot for marked location of photographer
  • tourism=photo_prop for dedicated photo prop (with optional photo_prop=type)
  • photo_prop=yes as attribute of other features (if verifiable)
11

Top-left photo is just whatever the author of this collage (if you notice, it’s one image file with multiple actual photos as a collage) decided to put there. Ignore it (although I think it’s just a photo taken from “photo spot” marked on the pavement).

”Good view” is subjective, I don’t see any problem of having “good view” to the theater if it gives “that very famous instagram look”. So it all still fits under “viewpoints” perfectly IMO.

12

The focus is “surrounding”. There’s no surroundings here, only the venue itself.

13

It doesn’t matter really. If at the given coordinates a reasonable person can see a notable view of something (either landscape or manmade object/building) - that’s a viewpoint. Viewpoint to the venue - sure, why not. Viewpoint to the Burj Khalifa - sure, why not. Viewpoint to the mountains - sure.

I really think the main tag for whatever is discussed here is still a “viewpoint”. There is no need to invent something new and work with all known renders to render a new tag. Sure it can be clarified by a new details tag like photospot=yes (or viewpoint=photospot maybe?) or whatever else is suggested here, but so far I strongly believe (almost) all examples given here fall under viewpoint in the first place (while “I :heart: :cityscape:” is neither - just an artwork).

2 Likes
14

I mislinked the plants one. You see these as =viewpoint ? https://www.sunpole.co.jp/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/story_sumaho_ohunaflower.jpg
On the contrary, the I Love Nice example is looking towards the sea, and with the cityscape, coast, and hills or mountains. Why should it not be =viewpoint ?

15

I would think it should not depend on the “to be viewed objects” whether it’s a viewpoint or not and would rather prefer to have that information stored in a sub-key. It seems, viewpoint=* is used for something similar already, like viewpoint=birdwatching or others.

Though such kind of stand could be mapped as a separate thing, same like we do with amenity=binoculars.

16

That only explains the format, not the meaning. Almost all viewpoint= seem to be looking at far away, or wide surrounding. If this needs to be considered, I would suggest the author @AlesKubr to do a poll on whether the community have tried to use, and accept =viewpoint being used for these different extents.