[RFC] Feature Proposal – Miniature golf features

General talk Tagging general discussion
,
1

Hi everybody,

I propose additional tags for minigolf courses that I found missing. It contains

  • exchanging leisure/sport=miniature_golf with *=minigolf
  • tags to distinguish different lane systems (miniature golf, feltgolf, concrete, pit-pat…)
  • tags to map standartized lanes as given by the World Minigolf Foundation, which cover most lanes, at least in Europe

Link to the proposal

Please, cross post this announcement on the tagging mailing list on my behalf by sending an email to: tagging@openstreetmap.org

Greets

2

For comparison, taginfo for miniature_golf and minigolf.

With regard to the other tagging suggestions in your proposal, is there any use of them (or other tags for those concepts) currently? I’d suggest a “JFDI / ATYL” approach rather than an in-depth discussion of a complicated proposal. People who don’t play the game aren’t in a position to comment, but surely won’t mind if people who do add extra detail as you suggest.

1 Like
3

I feel like pitch=* would be a more natural key than minigolf:lane to describe the type of the pitch. Similarly, using mirrored=yes might be enough.

Individual minigolf lanes have been tagged with leisure=pitch + sport=miniature_golf so far. I don’t see any reason not to keep it like that.

Don’t you mean the opposite? I would expect that you want to change individual lane tagging too for consistency.

To map variations permitted by the WMF-rules, I want to introduce the following two subkeys:

  • minigolf:lane:mirrored=yes/no; several lanes in all systems are permitted in mirrored versions (default value is no)
  • minigolf:lane:green=yes/no; several lanes in the feltgolf system are permitted without green (default value is yes)

I don’t understand the description of the tags. Do you intend to tag the standard itself?
If you want to tag that the lane is certified by WMF as that type of lane, then maybe a wmf=* tag might be better.

It’s good to have some rules written down, so others can comment on them. I agree with my predecessor that this doesn’t require an approved proposal at this stage. Have you been in contact with potential consumers of these tags?

4

Thanks for the input! I do agree with the JFDI/ATLY-approach, but I wanted to have rules set to be discussed (which happened successfully) or even directly applied.

To get along with this approach I adapted the proposal the following way

  • I abandoned the switch to minigolf, that’s the main controversial and can be discussed seperately
  • pitch=* is indeed more intuitive than minigolf:lane=* so I switched that
  • mirrored=* should also do. I switched to green=* too for the same reason/consistency

I don’t understand the description of the tags. Do you intend to tag the standard itself?

Yes, but those variations are included in the standard.

I would proceed linking the adapted proposal in the wiki page for leisure=miniature_golf and just start mapping stuff