Proposal talk:Key:attraction
attraction:roller_coaster would be especially helpful. I've already seen a few U.S. amusement parks with roller coasters marked as railroad tracks! – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Not "attractions"
Most of the items listed are not "attractions" for me. I don't care about a single slide on a playground. An attraction for me would be a "water park" or a "Oktoberfest-Site". Please leave this keyword for bigger attractions than playground items.--Lulu-Ann 12:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree. I've proposed attraction=* before, for things like theme parks, zoos, observation wheels (like the London Eye), many of which are already in tourism=* (which feels slightly inappropriate to me, as they're not always for tourists). However, I can see where you're coming from in wanting to tag rollercoasters, rides, etc within a theme park. I guess the term is ambiguous (theme parks are an attraction, but they also contain attractions). Frankie Roberto 09:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Concur. Before I found this page, I started a proposal to extend leisure=playground to add toys of this nature, using playground=slide etc. See Proposed_features/Playground_Equipment. I would say that, although you may not care what items are in a playground, you might care how many and of what type of item there is, particularly if you are disabled.--Antonyking 21:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- So what alternative would you suggest for what's described on this page? "ride" comes to my mind, but while it fits for roller coasters and spring riders, it doesn't fit for mazes and sandboxes. --Head 17:54, 21 September 2010 (BST)
- First I was sceptical about this proposal, because I thought that attraction=* is intended to refine tourism=attraction. That would be a bad idea, because there are already a lot of physical keys to choose from. The description should explicitly mention that attraction=* has nothing to do with tourism=attraction. Later I read that attraction=* is just intended for elements of a theme park, or zoo, etc. Looking at www.prater.at, I realized that they really call these elements "attractions". So this seems to be a reasonable key name indeed (although it is somewhat misleading (see my 1st sentence) and leisure=* would be a possible alternative in most cases). I like the idea to be able to map these attractions separately. This may not be needed for small playgrounds, but it will for larger theme parks etc. --Fkv 05:31, 27 March 2011 (BST)
- I believe that attraction=* as a key is fine, but, unlike the proposal currently states, I would not recommend to add tourism=attraction to each of these (eventually add it to one of them or to the park as a whole but only where it applies). --Dieterdreist (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I removed the requirement to use tourism=attraction.--Jojo4u (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
new attractions:
Tree-Climbing
I would suggest to add attraction=tree_climbing to the list. It is very common all over the world. --Walterschloegl 17:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
monument
In my opinion attraction=monument would fit as well
- Can you give an example? What's the difference to historic=monument? --Fkv (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are right - it would be a douplicate of historic=monument and a split between historic(attractions) and other attractions might be better than a combind tag. Thanks for your comment--KartenKarsten (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
animals
Please change animal=* to the well-established key species=*. --Fkv 05:42, 27 March 2011 (BST)
Removed playground equipment
I removed the playground equipment since it now resides in the approved playground=* and every feature had an equivalent over there.--Jojo4u (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)