Proposal:Giant furniture

tourism=giant_furniture
Proposal status:	Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by:	Francians
Tagging:	tourism=giant_furniture
Applies to:
Definition:	any giant furniture meant to be a viewpoint or a tourism attraction
Statistics:
Draft started:	2021-05-19
RFC start:	2021-05-19
Vote start:	2021-06-02
Vote end:	2021-06-16

Proposal

Giant furniture is a kind of Roadside attraction meant to give a spot for taking pictures and attract tourists with a fixed installation that may be, by example, an over-sized chair or a big bench.

Usually this kind of features offers a ladder to reach the top and sometimes you can just climb on them.

Rationale

Proposal born from many comments on original Big Bench page.

Examples

Proposed_features/big_bench

Tagging

Create a node and add tag tourism=giant_furniture. Then add:

• giant_furniture=bench/chair/user defined
• ladder=yes/no
• climb=yes/no

Useful combinations:

• height=*
• width=*
• length=*
• operator=*
• brand=*
• start_date=*
• color=*
• material=*

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

Voting

Instructions for voting

• Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
• Scroll down to voting and click 'Edit source'. Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:

To get this output	you type	Description
I approve this proposal.	{{vote|yes}} --~~~~	Feel free to also explain why you support proposal.
I oppose this proposal. reason	{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~	Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no.
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. comments	{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~	If you don't want to vote but have comments. Replace comments with your comments.

Note: The ~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.
For full template documentation see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.

• I oppose this proposal. I'm not sure why this would'nt fit in a tourism=viewpoint/yes + attraction=giant_furniture + giant_furniture=big_bench/... scheme and didn't really see reasons in older proposal or this one to create a dedicated tourism value. Reusing an existing tourism=* value would make these objects visible in every existing app while a new value for tourism means years of waiting before it become widely used by third parties. So I'm voting no, but can change my mind if proposal is clarified --PanierAvide (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

What about cases where it is not a viewpoint? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the purpose of giant furniture to offer a viewpoint ? Though it could be marked as tourism=attraction if it's not a viewpoint. --PanierAvide (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

One thought I would have against using tourism=attraction is that it's an extremely generic tag -- everything is an attraction if you try hard enough -- and there's a lot of things lumped in as "attractions" in the OSM database already. It's a bit like having highway=road + road=tertiary rather than highway=tertiary --Jarek Piórkowski (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. Casey boy (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I don't think large benches are special enough to be tagged using a new top-level tag. What makes them different from other upscaled objects, say a snail or a mushroom? I think they should be tagged as what they are, a viewpoint, an attraction, a sculpture, a piece of advertisement (depending on the case). The specifics like the design can be put into additional tags. --Mueschel (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. with the addition of “climb” and “ladder” it works for me, although the border between tourist attraction and advertising may be non existent in some instances, this could be solved by adding also advertisement tags.—Dieterdreist (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. They're just viewpoints with interesting shapes, right? I would prefer to see an optional tag to add to viewpoints. --501ghost (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. This proposal while I'm sure well intentioned seems like it was rushed. The rationale is lacking in my opinion, there are no examples listed save for a link to another drafted proposal, no suggestions as to rendering are made and it would appear that no larger discussion was had, at least none were linked. Especially the previously brought up suggestions about why these types of features could not be tagged as tourism=artwork, tourism=attraction or tourism=viewpoint was seemingly not addressed here. --Recoil16 (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Giant furniture is too specific. It would be better to have a tag for giant objects in general (giant bench, giant ball of twine, etc.) as this is a common type of attraction in the central US. I also agree with Recoil16 that this proposal is incomplete and points raised during discussion have not been addressed. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I'm not opposed to tagging this in general, but this should be a subkey under tourism=attraction / attraction=* and should also include other giant objects that are not furniture (with options to specify the kind of giant object) --Woazboat (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

attraction=* it's for theme park attractions, or rollercoaster can stay with benches? --Francians (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. I like the idea but should be a tag under attraction=*. And the tag should be more broad to include more than just giant furniture like just giant things. --BubbaJuice (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. IMHO a new tourism value is too high level for giant furniture alone; tourism=attraction or tourism=artwork would serve fine and would be instantly processed by data consumers. I would support a "tourism=giant_attraction" value, tough. --Schoschi (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. 1.This proposal is specific to 'giant' as primary tag, I think it should not be so restrictive, it can also be 'small', 'stretched', 'torn' or whatever (and still be usable... or not). For instance in Nantes there are all sizes of benches available in the Jardin des Plantes (https://www.nanook-world.com/2014/03/claude-ponti-revient-au-jardin-des-plantes-de-nantes/ , http://media.paperblog.fr/i/642/6428985/banc-geant-jardin-plantes-nantes-L-2Vqm4M.jpeg and https://jardins.nantes.fr/N/Accueil/Ponti/Photo/Ponti-2014-Nantes-21.jpg). 2. Should go under tourism=attraction + attraction=furniture + something like form=giant|small|* --LeTopographeFou (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I also think giant furniture is too specific. Like the voter above said, it would be better to have a tag for giant objects in general. Furniture is a small subset of these types of oversized objects. Since a lot of them are neither artwork nor viewpoints, I prefer tourism=attraction as the top level tag for these objects. --Dr Centerline (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

attraction=* is not a subtag of tourism=attraction... --Francians (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Mandu73 (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Canfe (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Skinoku (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. With reference to your update http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-Voting-Giant-furniture-tp5992610p5992728.html, I disagree tourism=artwork has to satisfy the "can you climb on artwork?" question. I can certainly lean over, hug, and even sit on a human sculpture on a bench. (It can be a question whether the bench itself is part of the art piece) The issue here is problem with understanding your proposal. Although the above votes should re-read the status of attraction=*, it is true tourism=attraction can be unclear at times. You are not helping by mixing up the view function, the furniture structure, and the artistic design. ---- Kovposch (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

So you are saying you voted against the form of the proposal itself more than against the new tag... What can I say? Interesting... :)--Francians (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. As said many times by now, tourism=attraction already covers this sufficiently as a main tag. "2) to describe a facility which was built as a general tourist attraction". --Famlam (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

From my point of view, tourism=attraction is a placeholder for everything that people would like to see on the map which might be somehow interesting to tourists as well, and for which there isn’t yet specific tagging. It is not a tag I believe we would have if we had an ideal, “finished” tagging system, and the existence of this tag would surely not stop me from introducing specific tags for things that are currently tagged as “tourist attractions” - that’s a property (is interesting for tourists) not a class of feature that describes what something is. —Dieterdreist (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Musuruan (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Same as others, this tag has a "giant" and "furniture" component (and "tourism"), both of which already have their own tags. --Lejun (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. As others have said, this is way too specific. We already have tags for attractions/tourism points. I'm not completely against mapping 'giant' things, but restricting it to just furniture is bad. A key like size=giant/tiny/etc to use in addition to other normal tags would be much more useful. --GoodClover ^{(a.k.a. Olive, )} (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the tag page you linked? When it's allowed to use it with a string? Anyway that proposal has a certain redundancy with width, height and length tags...

• I oppose this proposal. next we'll see giant_dinosaure, giant_chair, giant_table --JB (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You didn't read the proposal... It wasn't short enough

• I oppose this proposal.Too specific for a main value --StephaneP (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --OSMRogerWilco (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC) Example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sofa_in_Soltau.jpeg

Thanks! I added it to the commons category: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Giant_furniture

• I oppose this proposal. Not common enough to justify the use of a new top level value. All use cases and occurrences described fit in one of the more general tourism=* top level values and can be detailed with proper attribution. --Bert Araali (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I agree with others - it's too specific to be a separate top level value. --[[User:Comfyquiettree|comfyquiettree

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was rejected with 9 votes for and 19 votes against.