RFC: Restarting Proposal:Agritourism

General talk Tagging general discussion
,
1

Following recent talk on Discord (1359650314885796082) regarding [Agritourism - Wikipedia Agritourism], I spotted that there had once been a proposal at least started for it:
Proposal:Agritourism - OpenStreetMap Wiki, & thought that we should re-open discussion on it?

It was initially raised back in 2011, but seems that nothing ever happened with it, and it was then marked as Abandoned in 2020.

Despite this, it has always received steady usage: agritourism | Keys | OpenStreetMap Taginfo and is now in use 500+ times!

The original proposal certainly needs a bit of rewording & tidying (certainly to say that it’s not just for farms in Italy!). Unfortunately, I’m out of time today, so will have to leave it here just now, but what does everybody think of the concept?

2

Thinking about it a little further, do we really even need to discuss it?

It’s been used 516 times, so is it acceptable to just write up a wiki page & mark it as either “In Use” or “De Facto”?

3

Which concept? The proposal does not describe the concept, it implies you already know what it means.

Is it about accomodation in or close to a farmyard?

Must the farmyard be working as a farmyard, or are ex farmyards that are converted to guest houses, still ok?

Is it about a restaurant in or close to a farmyard?

Is it expected they prepare meals with their own produce, or mostly with their own produce or is it only about the location and the ingredients come from the supermarket (or their neighbours)?

What is required and what is optional?

IMHO yes, look at these questions. The abandoned proposal is not useful because it doesn’t state criterions nor does it define requirements. The discussion is useful to come to a shared definition for the tag.

1 Like
4

Currently, there are 2.5k guest_house= , 144 apartment= , and 10 chalet= . =agritourism . Would agritourism=yes mean they should be replaced?
Or instead for the format, use place=farm + farm= =agritourism / =tourism , or eg usage= to be applicable to =farmyard (as farmyard= has other uses), similar to usage=tourism on railway= , to avoid inventing another top-level attribute. Unless agritoruism= is reserving possibility for =only (dedicated to tourism not commercial production), =main , =partial , =limited , etc to qualify how much the farm is doing it.
Fundamentally, agritourism= is on the vague side. Listing the exact activities provided would be more specific, and allow various definitions to be taken. There are some dubious ones.

  • “direct-to-consumer sales such as farm stands” in the lede seems standard retail, not significantly tourism-related (“and u-pick,” is fine)
  • “recreational activities such as hunting and horseback riding, and entertainment events like hayrides” are farm or ranch activities, but not directly involved in agriculture (“and harvest dinners.” ok)

Other solutions and ideas already exists

1 Like