Tourism=tours , only 4 uses?

I’m presently looking for incorrect uses of the [tourism=] tag in the United Kingdom, for example tags that should be [name=] and I’ve stumbled upon the [tourism=tours] tag, as well as a [tourism=] tag that should be [tourism=tours;tours=].

However my problem is that the tag is very undocumented, with only 4 uses on nodes/ways/relations appearing worldwide, and the wiki page only being made 2 weeks ago (May 13th). I’m therefore wondering if there is already an established tag for places such as vineyards, breweries or private estates that do tours either on a regular basis or via advanced booking (specificity because this is what I have in mind for mapping) thus can not correctly be defined by the tag office=guide.

relevant links:

Four uses is not even statically significant. Let alone a consensus on how to use the tags. As a result the wiki pages should be marked as proposals especially considering how empty they are.

The whole “guide” page doesn’t even make sense. We don’t map people. At most we map thier house or burial markers. Guides are people employed by tourism companies. This fact alone making office=guide meaningless. The office is run by the a tour company that employs them so the he type is office=tourism. The guides just conduct the tours. This is true even in the case of a sole proprietor.

The other huge is that main phots on both pages focuses on a singular person. Each photo has enough facial detail to make each one likely identifiable by recognition software or those people familiar them.

I doubt those pictured have signed any releases for ther likeness nor would OSM want to deal with the associated legal issues even in the case they did.

For that resson alone, both pages should be immediately flagged for legal issues.

Edited for clarity.

Doesn’t make sense as a feature. This is an attribute that should be added to the feature being toured. tours is too short. It is prone to abuse by style users, and one-off or unverifiable “tours”.
There are already 34+18+8+4=64 , including scuba_diving:guided_tours= , and wheelchair:guided_tour Search results | OpenStreetMap Taginfo

After deciding singular vs plural, you could use guided_tour*=yes + guided_tour*:reservation= to solve your question. wheelchair:guided_tour= needs to be switched to guided_tour:wheelchair= to standardize with *:wheelchair= suffixes eg toilets:wheelchair= .
As a side note for the possibilities of tour*= use, I guess ref:tour= is being used for the “tour” of waste collection in Bremen, all =waste_basket ref:tour | Keys | OpenStreetMap Taginfo

Good point. Tours are something you do, not go to. What about adding a related tag to the route of the tour itself?

  1. " Tours is a place or area where guided touristic tours or any kind of recreational tours for tourists are offered." I am not a native speaker, but it seems sort of broken sentence?

  2. mapping separate top level object to mark that tours are offered seems broken. This should be at most a property of object

  3. with just 16 uses it should not be added to overview page

Overall I propose to remove it from - it can be added to separate page or have proposal page created

And say Way: ‪Bristol Packet Boat Trips‬ (‪670585946‬) | OpenStreetMap would be better tagged as shop/office depending on what it is.

There are different kinds of situations which might merit different tagging.

For example there are tour operators that have their own office (often not publicly visitable back offices) and either work as individuals or companies mainly or exclusively organizing/providing guided tours (office=tour_operator?).

Almost any travel agency will also offer to organize tour guides (shop=travel_agency), they are distinct as you typically can walk into a shop,

and there are other places like those who rent bicycles and scooters, or hotels, who arrange guided tours (some case I know they offer walking tours and tours with vehicles as a significant part of their business but define themselves as vehicle rent and the tour guides are independent professionals).

I guess there are even more different situations related to tours, and the arrangement of tours, we definitely need at least a main tag (tour organizer back office), currently there are some very few instances of office=tour_guide_office, tour_guide, tour_organizer, tours, tour_operator

By the way, to legally offer tours may require some kind of formal qualification (in some countries), and it may be different according to the kind of tour, e.g. to lead a mountain tour you may be required to be a mountain guide, while for a cultural tour you may need to be registered as a tourist guide (and have demonstrated your qualification). Some tours are just an hour while others are for several days. Shall we make such distinctions and add additional properties? Maybe we can have some kind of topic tag, to distinguish sport (e.g. climbing, skiing, mountaineering) from culture, specialist stuff like underground / speleological tours, diving, canoeing, etc.?

removed from main overview of tourism= key in Template:Generic:Map Features:tourism: Difference between revisions - OpenStreetMap Wiki

1 Like

What we need is a tag for marking places where they offer whale_watching tours, helicopter tours, canyoning, etc (see Tag:tourism=tours - OpenStreetMap Wiki).

There are only few uses of this tag, as the tag was missing. It might be, that there are several other tags that have been used for guided tours.

You can of course overcomplicate it or just use tours, which is easy to remember and easy to use. As this is a do-ocrazy, somebody has to start it. If it is in the wiki (and later in the presets of some editors), more and more mappers will use it.

Therefore I’ll undo your removal, as there was no consensus as to what should be done about it. Maybe it could be renamed to tourism=guided_tour + guided_tour=canyoning etc. Could be more clear, yes.

By the way I don’t know how to correct the error, which tells me that the tag is missing in some database. But maybe we should first decide which tag exactly to use and the rename everything (if needed) and THEN add the tag to the database.

Note that it is key overview page where widely used and accepted tags are listed.

“this tag is not fully deprecated” is not enough to qualify it there. I would strongly encourage you to create at most tag page for this specific tag rather than listing it at Key:tourism overview page

Can you explain what “no consensus” did you see? None of the participants here expressed support on keeping it in in the tourism= list. All are criticizing =tours itself.
Please think about proper reasons to revert eg by referring to how other wikis before saying something like “Therefore I’ll undo your removal”. This doesn’t help your case. Please discuss before reverting, especially as this is a active topic. Your revert is in bad style when there’s not even an edit summary.


Ok, I’ll undo again.