Talk:Tag:sport=free flying

use leisure=pitch?

Should we also use leisure=pitch for all free_flying sites?

Question about free_flying:site_orientation=*

The tag free_flying:site_orientation=* is almost tagged with a comma, if there are multiple values. Should it not be tagged with a semicolon? Because on other tags, if there are multiple values, they are always separated with a semicolon. And I think, to be consistent, it should separated by semicolon also on this tag. --Efred 09:37, 21 August 2012 (BST)

I don't care wether it is ; or , sletuffe 15:48, 21 August 2012 (BST)

I like consistency. Semicolon++. --DaniloB 23:06, 21 August 2012 (BST)

Updated the wiki page. --DaniloB (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"free_flying" isn't used in English. What you're describing is referred to in English as "Paragliding". SomeoneElse (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"free_flying" is complete incorrect in my opinion. In English, this is "paragliding". In German and English the word "Freeflying" means something different: a skydiving discipline! Please look on the English and German Wiki page for "freeflying". Free_flying seems to be incorrect, misleading and nonsense. See Freeflying (English) and Freeflying (German) Thuringian (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

free_flying:site=toplanding

Yeah, it's been 4 years and I should have said so earlier, but imho free_flying:site=toplanding should be deprecated in favor of free_flying:site=landing since I don't see why a top landing wouldn't be a landing in the first place (optionnaly with an ele=* if you feel like it.) sletuffe (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. --DaniloB (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Marked it as deprecated in the description. Not sure what the proper process is. --DaniloB (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"landing" means landing on a height remarkable lower than takeoff height. "toplanding" is for experienced people only and requires special skill and training. The height for toplanding may be higher than the takeoff height. This difference is VERY important, otherwise it creates a danger for the inexperienced people. I am a paraglider. --Thuringian (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

free_flying:site=packing

Hello,

I would suggest the tag free_flying:site=packing to specify packing area on landing or take off where those space are designated and even compulsory.

For example, the landing of Doussard, is stricly delimited (you can even see it from imagery, it is the east part on the side of the gravel and bench). It would be interesting to have this information for flight preparation.

Sounds good to me. I also know some sites that have a dedicated packing area. --DaniloB (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

free_flying:site=groung_handling and ground_handling=permissive

Hello again,

I would also suggest the tag free_flying:site=ground_handling to specify a training area that is flat to train the "handling" of the paraglider. These can be strictly delimited area or permissive on some landing area as long no one is going to land. For landing where ground handling is permissive I suggest to add gound_handling=permissive on the landing area.

To differentiate this area from the landing by name I suggest adding a name like "Ground handling area of <site name>". --Futur3r (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

companies producing / shops selling equipment

How to tag a company or shop ? see Key:aerospace:product taginfo :sales

Shop=free_flying has 13 uses. Which is probably 13 more then there is for whatever random, useless, nonsense namespace scheme your trying to push by asking. BTW, you should sign your comment. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

free_flying:speedflying=yes/no

Hello,

I would suggest the tag free_flying:speedflying=yes/no. Speedflying locations may not be suitable for paragliding and vice versa. --SergienkoMike (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Combined Sites

What about locations that can be used both as a launch and as a toplanding area? Should two separate nodes / areas be created? Or should there be one tag for both?

Maybe the tagging schema should be adapted:

- free_flying:takeoff=yes/no/permissive
- free_flying:landing=yes/no/permissive
- free_flying:ground_handling=yes/no/permissive

(Or maybe namespaced below `free_flying:site:`)

This way, multiple site types can be mapped on a single object. --DaniloB (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I like the proposed tagging scheme, since it would also add the ability to mark up no-landing zones (see next section). However, this would require a migration of existing usage. How would such a migration work? Could it be automated? Gwicke (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, is anyone aware of existing map consumers that depend on the current site markup scheme? I suspect most might only look for sport=free_flying, but could be wrong.

More generally, what is the process for agreeing on tag changes like this? Just "be bold", update the documentation & migrate existing usage with a bot or similar? -- Gwicke (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

For automatic migrations, https://github.com/matkoniecz/osm_bot_abstraction_layer has a library, and an example migration script. So I think that part is doable.

However, there are around 3.5k uses of free_flying:site, mostly in Europe. There might be automatic sync pipelines creating sites in Scandinavia based on flight data. These would need to be updated if the site tagging scheme changed. The bot library README suggests discussing tag changes on the OSM forum. -- Gwicke (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

No-landing sites / zones

Hi, many paragliding / free flight communities maintain maps both of landing zones (primary & bail-out), but also of no-landing zones. No-landing zones are usually about hostile land owners, issues with animals, or dangerous areas. An example of such a map for the Bellingham area is here.

What are people's thoughts on supporting some form of no-landing zone markup in OSM? As a strawman, perhaps free_flying:site=no-landing? Gwicke (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, I would also like to also add a no takeoff zone (free_flying:site=no-takeoff?) as I have come across some areas that look like a good takeoff but past incidents showed that they are too dangerous. --Hardcover2452 (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"free_flying:site_orientation" Why not just use "direction"?

I suggest moving over to the "direction" tag, it is standardized with a very well documented page. Why duplicate, right? Hardcover2452 (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

SGTM, but there are quite a few existing sites using "free_flying:site_orientation": https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1EvV. Are there ways to migrate those automatically? -- Gwicke (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably with some scripting but I wouldn't dare do it myself :P --Hardcover2452 (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an official way to mark multiple valid wind directions with the "direction" tag, which is almost always done with "site_orientation". There's the "angle-angle" notation, which is confusing (no indication whether the angle is CW or CCW), and there's only some discussion about semicolon-separated values in the talk page --Wavexx (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)