Skip to content

Add bench:type field#1490

Closed
Zverik wants to merge 1 commit intoopenstreetmap:mainfrom
Zverik:bench_type
Closed

Add bench:type field#1490
Zverik wants to merge 1 commit intoopenstreetmap:mainfrom
Zverik:bench_type

Conversation

@Zverik
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@Zverik Zverik commented Mar 24, 2025

I have been mapping benches for years, and did not have any idea how to map swing benches. Until somebody in the chat hinted at bench:type=swing. And I was like, why this is not in the presets?!

This PR adds a bench type field to the amenity/bench preset. No predefined options for this combo, like in other *:type fields: everything should come from Taginfo, and the values are pretty self-explanatory.

The wiki page mentions a controversy with the *:type tags. I believe there is not the case with benches: the bench=* tag almost universally is used to mark a presence of a bench (like shelter=* and atm=*), so we don't have any other options. Also bench:type tag has been used on ~3k benches, which is a lot, considering it's not in any presets.

Finally, I have added the field into the main fields list, because to me it's pretty important, on par with bench material, or any other feature types, e.g. crossing=*.

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

🍱 Your pull request preview is ready

Please use this preview to check your changes. Ideally use the test documentation template and document your test results by commenting on the PR. This will speed up the review process for everyone.

FYI, once this PR is merged, you can use the iD Editor Preview to test your changes in interaction with all other changes.

@Kovoschiz
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Kovoschiz commented Mar 25, 2025

In 2015, 96% of it was mass added. The delta: 530 is still 16% of the 3293 instances now. https://taghistory.raifer.tech/?#***/bench:type/
bench= has at least 393+231+41+29+21+13+9+7+5+5+4+4+4+4+3+2+2=777 instances about types https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bench#values
bench=wave_lounger is slightly more numerous than bench:type=lounger

@Zverik
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Zverik commented Mar 25, 2025

I have read about the mass addition, but still. bench:type has been documented on the wiki since 2020, unlike bench=*, so that alone makes this tag preferrable. And from my surveying experience I know I need some key to map those attributes.

@Kovoschiz
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Kovoschiz commented Mar 25, 2025

bench= is still more numerous on loungers, so that's inconclusive. There's also confusion compared to amenity=lounger https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bench:type#";ounger"_type
A greater controversy would be whether =stand_up are =bench at all. That's another 25% of bench:type= there.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@tordans tordans left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree the tagging schema can be approved in this area and we should…
But I think the status quo is still too chaotic to add the change currently proposed here.

If we add the type as a field, users will be very motivated to fill it out. For the majority of benches, that will not add any additional information so it is useless added data and costs time. But even worse, I don't see a real "that is a normal bench" value in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bench:type#Common_values … so what would users pick for a regular bench.

We could look for a way to work around this by building the UI in a way that shows the default as "regular bench" and provides a nil value. But I don't think the combo type can do that (can it?).

Another thing that I think we need to resolve is, that we have https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/blob/main/data/presets/amenity/lounger.json as a preset for lounger. In this case, iD would recommend two ways to map the same thing… The data for lounger is still hugely in favor of the separate tagging https://taghistory.raifer.tech/?#***/amenity/lounger&***/bench%3Atype/lounger — And given the difference in usage, I think that will not change.

What we could do to improve this, is…

  • …create separate presets for the most important additional types. But given that all those variations have less than 1k usage and some are pretty new, I am not sure we want to do this. Also, it would require to know what you are looking for when you search for the preset; which is not ideal
  • … use a checkbox UI to say "this is a swing" and maybe an additional "this is for standing" which then applies the tag (see schema repo for docs)
  • … use a combo dropdown but only provide curated value options

@tordans tordans added waitfor-consensus there seems to be no clear consensus on this in the osm communtiy; this has to wait waitfor-discussion a discussion in the osm community (e.g. a tag proposal) is required before this can be worked on add-field add existing field to more entries, for field creation see new-field and removed waitfor-consensus there seems to be no clear consensus on this in the osm communtiy; this has to wait labels Mar 30, 2025
@matkoniecz
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

also, for https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Swinging_Bench_in_Towson_Manor_Park.jpg I would tag it as playground=swing

I was not aware that it could be tagged as a bench

@matkoniecz
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

For the majority of benches, that will not add any additional information so it is useless added data and costs time. But even worse, I don't see a real "that is a normal bench" value in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bench:type#Common_values … so what would users pick for a regular bench.

seems unsolved so I plan on closing this PR as rejected

@matkoniecz
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

closing per above

@matkoniecz matkoniecz closed this Oct 19, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

add-field add existing field to more entries, for field creation see new-field waitfor-discussion a discussion in the osm community (e.g. a tag proposal) is required before this can be worked on

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants