Proposal talk:Sled

Not really inactive

The proposal was marked inactive; the main reason why I didn't update it is that there were no new discussions on it. The proposal itself - at least from my side - is still active ;-)

When you planning to start RFC or vote? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I was not aware that I'm entitled to start such a process. I'll make myself familiar with the rules and will initiate the next step. --Phispi (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

See Proposal process in general. Note that in some cases it may be smarter to do just RFC and skip vote, and just document tag in main wiki space (especially when idea is good but vote has noticeably risk of failing). I did it this way with amenity=traffic_park Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Summary of feedback from the tagging mailing list (started at 2022-12-10)

In my own words:

• Anne: "sledding" is the better word than "sled".
• Yves: A relation type grouping sled runs, parking, restaurants, etc. doesn't add much value as the core information is already there.
• Yves: Why not use Tag:route=piste?
• Sven: Discussion is similar to discussion about type=site + tourism=camp_site. Both are "grouping related things"

Verifiability of this relation

This looks very much like a manually curated grouping which will have challenges to be verified on the ground and thus seems unsuitable to be stored in OSM, but more for an external project. Particularly the seemingly external memberships of restaurants and transport infrastructure would be unverifiable, e.g. if looking or asking in these amenities whether they are part of the sled run infrastructure most would probably not look that way. It looks like you are trying to capture the whole route infrastructure of a sled run, both downhill and back up again. All the other information about parking, restaurants nearby is already captured through the geographical vicinity of these features along the sled run. I would rather suggest thinking about enhancing the existing piste route tagging to also include the footway uphill *if* that is actually signed as such. If the footway is just a curated suggestion it is not verifiable and other sled users might have different preferences and could change it any time. --Claudius (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Yes, this pretty much summarizes the feedback I got so far. Regarding parking and huts: I agree that it makes more sense to directly some tag the information that is somehow missing (like whether the snow is usually removed in Winter so that the parking spot can actually be used - although that example has verifiability issues as well but it works better with opening seasons for huts). I'm currently thinking about a good way of incorporating the information about the sled run to the route=piste tag but I don't have good ideas for everything that I think would make sense by now. --Phispi (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Some name (Rodelbahn)

I'd say, these (Rodelbahn)-names on ways can be removed without a proposal. That would indeed be highly appreciated! They have no standing on the ground. Note that there is piste:name too, and opensnowmap will show them, see Mutter Alm, where I used that. No need to add (Rodelbahn) as it is clear from the overlay. Waymarkedtrails seems to only show ref values, and sled runs rarely have those. PS: Heads up to include public transport, parking and huts! --Hungerburg (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely agree (I never tagged any sled run with a "... (Rodelbahn)" in it's name - this could be done by the renderer if deemed needed). I never have found any official reference saying that this is bad practice, otherwise I would have removed the "... (Rodelbahn)" postfix for those ways with a link. Thanks for pointing to piste:name. Currently I'm inclined to reject the proposed sled proposal and go for the piste:* infrastructure that is already existing, probably making proposals there to enable tagging things that currently cannot be tagged. As for huts, parking and public transport, although it's convenient to be in a sled run relation, I agree with people commenting that this is not strictly needed as they can be derived from existing elements (maybe with some additions, e.g. whether the snow is removed in winter). --Phispi (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I see. Maybe relations of type "site" can be used to cover the services around the sled-run? After all, the huts on top groom the piste. Birgitzköpfl is a pants-pocket alike to Axamer Lizum? They have their own PT bus stop :) --Hungerburg (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal canceled

Based on the discussions I came to the conclusion to cancel the proposal in it's current form. I will remove the existing tags in OSM. For the time being, Tag:route=piste is the closest alternative but I might come up with a different proposal addressing the shortcomings. Thank you all! --Phispi (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)