Proposal:Apartment
| Apartment | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Proposed by: | nounours77 |
| Tagging: | tourism=apartment |
| Applies to: |  ,  }
|
| Definition: | A furnished flat/apartment that can be rented for a short period of time, applies either to single apartment or to multiple apartments in a building/bloc |
| Statistics: |
|
| Draft started: | 2014-01-02 |
| RFC start: | 2014-01-02 |
| Vote start: | 2014-02-24 |
| Vote end: | 2014-03-10 |
Key
Description
A flat/apartment that can be rented, either from private person or a agency for a short period of time, e.g. on a weekly basis, for holiday purpose. Does not offer services like reception, bar or breakfast like a hotel or a guesthouse, but is just a more or less furnished flat which normally includes a cooking facility. The tag will be applied to a building containing one or more holiday flats. You can either add the tags to a point showing the location of the apartment, or tag an entire building in case there are several apartments in the building. If known the number of apartments can be specified.
Delimitation to tourism=chalet
tourism=apartment is very similar to tourism=chalet. Chalet are more single houses in mountain regions, and might often be more isolated. Apartments are often in villages, and several flats in one building. A possibility would be to use the same tag for both (but than this should be explicitly stated in the description of tourism=chalet), or use a separate tag. The argument for using separate tags might be that tourism=chalet might be rendered on lower zoom-levels than tourism=apartment due to it's ubiquitous appearance in holiday resorts.
Result of the first RFC phase
RFC-phase was started on 2014-01-02 and did not receive a lot of interest, but not at lot of opposition neither. I conclude that the idea is generally accepted and is more viewed as a logical extension of the existing tourism tagging scheme.
In the discussion on the tagging mail list, it was advocated:
- that there exists a tag "tourism=apartment" (237 uses)
- that the term "flat" is not well understood in the US (apartment preferred).
- that even the British might prefer "apartment" in a short-term rental context.
- total five comments prefer apartment over holiday_flat.
- on the other hand, there has been only 1 person advocating "holiday_flat" being more UK as the normal OSM-wording is, so it should be preferred.
=> I therefore agree to change my initial proposition tourism=holiday_flat into tourism=apartment.
- One person advocated strongly to use the plural, since by the definition, there are several apartments in one building. I disagree, most (holiday-)apartments I have in mind to tag are the only holiday-apartment present in that building, e.g. a building of apartments of private owners, among which one does let it as an holiday apartment. An individual house, where the owners install a spare apartment, which they will rent. Besides, recently the use of the singular seems to set as a standard (e.g. shop=musical instrument, even if there is sold more than one).
Some statistics on accommodation in general (will be moved "Tourism-Reform")
Some figures about the use of the "tourism=*" key: (Bold values are currently defined in the wiki)
| value | Worldwide | comments |
|---|---|---|
| hotel | 137 851 | This seems to be a well established tag, and probably clear to everybody what it is. |
| hostel | 12 516 | Probably clear as well, but is the delimitation to hotel always clear? |
| motel | 15 433 | Well, this might be cultural. But is a distinction between Hotel and Motel really possible and necessary? Most hotel include a parking space and are close to some roads, so is a Motel special enough to deserve a proper tag? |
| guest_house | 34 274 | Also here, the delimitation to hotel/hostel is not 100% clear, but seems to work for me. |
| bed_and_breakfast | 531 | According to the wiki, this should be included in "guest_house". Maybe make wiki more explicit? |
| camp_site | 47 720 | Very often, there are combined camp and caravan site. Why do we need two tags for this? |
| caravan_site | 11 307 | Very often, there are combined camp and caravan site. Why do we need two tags for this? |
| chalet | 13 706 | If I understand right, this tag is currently used for three different meanings: 1. for a alone standing chalet (something between a hotel and a mountain hut) - and thus rendered at higher zoom levels by some renderers. 2. As a individual holiday rental house (self-catering), which can be rented on a short time period. (this is equal to "holiday_apartment", only that's another building type, and maybe that "chalets" are less dense than "apartments". 3. Hotel-like infrastructures (with reception, catering, ....) where you do not sleep in a room, but an individual chalet. I guess that use No. 2 is the main use (at least that's what the wiki would suggest), but I'm not sure. |
| alpine_hut | 9 031 | Seems rather specific type of accommodation. In the wiki it's said to be catered, which is probably an unnecessary restriction. Most alpine_huts are, if at all, catered only part of the year. If they are open in unattendend periods, this tag is very similar to "wilderness_hut". It was already suggested to merge this tags when "wilderness_hut" was proposed. |
| wilderness_hut | 653 | As discussed on the proposal, this could easily and logically included into "alpine_hut". |
| cabin | 1050 | Should this go with alpine_hut/wilderness_hut? |
| mountain_hut | 7 | Should this go with alpine_hut/wilderness_hut? |
| hut | 112 | Should this go with alpine_hut/wilderness_hut? |
| apartment | 237 | this is probably exactly what were discussing here, even though I prefer having the term "holiday_" prefixed. |
| apartments | 130 | Unsure if this is more "resort/holiday_village", or just the same as "apartment/chalet", but just in plural since normally, a building consists of several holiday_apartments? |
| resort | 176 | . |
| other | x | 21 holiday_cottage, 14 holiday_village, 12 holiday_flat, 4 holiday_cottages, 3 Holiday apartments, 44 hunting_lodge, 41 basic_hut, 31 alm (=famers house in the mountains which might offer food and/or accommodation), 66 camping, 23 self_catering, 17 shelter, 16 cottage, etc. |
Dan wrote on the mailing list: "If I were starting from scratch, I might advocate tourism=self_catering. But tourism=chalet is very close in meaning (except for the implication that it's a free-standing building!) so I wonder if we can simply use that existing tag, and let the building=* tags help us decide if we want to spend our holiday in a free-standing structure!"
I completely agree! But looking at the list above, there are more tags very similar in the list. I think, either we go on making a new tag for every specific type of accommodation, or we group accommodations according logical criteria. This could be (terms are just placeholders yet)
1. Catered accommodation: hotel, motel, hostel, guesthouse
2. Self-catered accommodation: chalet, apartment/flat (the difference between 1&2 is not only catering, but service in general: no cleaning, no reception, no bar, ...)
3. Outdoor accommodation: camp-site, caravan-site
4. Hut: alpine_hut, wilderness_hut, mountain_hut, cabin, hut (the only difference I see is catered/not catered between alpine_hut and wilderness_hut - so is it really worth making two tags? Not all mountain huts are catered as well, and most are only some period of the year, but open also the rest of time)
=> As a general "tourism-reform" does not have yet a lot of interest, we save this idea for later and stay with the current tags.
Additional tags
Comment: When writing this, I more thought of an single apartment rented out by privates for holiday accommodation (e.g. someone owns a secondary flat he/she rents out from time to time, or a spare flat in their main house). So, the tag was about a single apartment, and so where this additional tags. In the discussion the idea of having an entire buildings containing several holiday apartments was put forward as a common option as well. To make the distinction between the two cases, the number_of_apartments=* does apply.
| Key | Value | Comment | |
|---|---|---|---|
| optional | number_of_apartments=* | "integer", default = 1 | the number of holiday apartments in the building |
| additional tags if the main tag refers to a single apartment, or if there a several apartments of the same type | |||
| optional | capacity=* | integer | The number of beds present, e.g. equals the max. number of people allowed to stay |
| optional | cooking=* | yes;no | yes if cooking facility present (XXdefault = yes => will be removed according to Avena701 --Nounours77 (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)) |
| optional | balcony=* | yes;no | yes if balcony/outside sitting area is present (XXdefault = no => will be removed according to Avena701 --Nounours77 (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)) |
| optional | view=* | yes;no;seaview;moutainview;* ' | yes if special scenery view is present from the flat, can be specified (all values except no should be treated as "yes", (XXdefault = no => will be removed according to Avena701 --Nounours77 (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)) |
Obviously, the standard contact tags website=*, email=*, phone=* apply to get in contact with the person/agency renting the flat. operator=* might apply if it's apartement chain or a holiday ressort operating the apartments. As well, internet_access="wlan;wired" might be interesting you use on this tag.
Comments
Please discuss this proposal, using the talk page for the proposal.
Voting
Please use {{vote|yes}} or {{vote|no}} and give your reasons to oppose. Use ~~~~ to sign your user name & date.
I approve this proposal. nounours77 --Nounours77 (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Dieterdreist (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Math1985 (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC) I think it would be good to have this tag. I think it would have been clearer though if the one-line definition would already that the tag can be used for blocks of multiple apartments.
- I approve this proposal. --Danstowell (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. AlaskaDave (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. However, there should be no default for balcony, cooking and view. Unspecified is unspecified. I also propose to avoid the wording B&B in section "Description" because we call that guesthouse in OSM. --Avena701 (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC) -- corrected --Nounours77 (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Janko (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Bma (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Chrabros (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Sageinventor (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
votes / comments after the official voting ended
I oppose this proposal. I feel this will become yet another piece of unmaintanable data in OSM. I think this would be viable as a hot link to one or more booking agencies for such apartments, where the OSM map and the live listing are linked. Brycenesbitt (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. — AlaskaDave The large number of wilderness and alpine huts needs to be addressed and unified somehow. (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. — Useful to distinguish\clarify from whole building tagged as tourism=guest_house Xxzme (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
