tourism=aquarium

[sorcrosc]

What do you think about rendering tourism=aquarium, at least for the name?

I think it could be treated the same as tourism=zoo

Sample here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323967826

[kocio-pl]

Makes sense for me in general.

[Jotam]

I agree. tourism=aquarium should be rendered. Even if it is just with the generic dot.

[matkoniecz]

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism=aquarium?uselang=pl - only 113 ways worldwide, in addition there are 132 nodes.

Seems to be a really rare tag.

[pnorman]

Not enough uses for a new rendering, and it's not a shop so it wouldn't get a dot.

[Jotam]

But why not treat it in the same way as tourism=zoo? Even if it is few instances, it's annoying NOT to find it when you look for it. And it doesn't do any harm to render it, does it?

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

Il giorno 16 lug 2016, alle ore 20:39, Paul Norman [email protected] ha scritto:

Not enough uses for a new rendering, and it's not a shop so it wouldn't get a dot.

it could be seen as a variant/subtype of zoo and get a name in the same style...

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

Il giorno 16 lug 2016, alle ore 20:24, Mateusz Konieczny [email protected] ha scritto:

Seems to be a really rare tag.

it's mostly a very significant feature, even if it's not occurring very often it doesn't mean it's a "rare tag" (because there's no alternative tagging method) but rather a rare (but important) feature.

[sorcrosc]

Not enough uses for a new rendering, and it's not a shop so it wouldn't get a dot.

There have been positive feedbacks on treating aquarium like zoo, which seems reasonable (and easy?), and no negative one. Can you comment on that?

[Jotam]

@pnorman: Please comment! Simply closing a topic when there is still need for discussion is not the best procedure for a community.

[Adamant36]

Any chance of revisiting this? According to Wikipedia and an internet search, there's only between 300 and 500 of them in the world anyway. So there will never be a large amount of the them mapped, but I still its worth rendering since they are major places. It could be either a dot or maybe someone could come up with an icon. A fish with some bubbles would be cool.

[matkoniecz]

there's only between 300 and 500 of them in the world anyway

I am tempted to classify it as result of stupid tagging scheme and continue to ignore it (it should be tourism=attraction attraction=aquarium, unfortunately nobody spotted it).

Something that appears less than 1000 times worldwide should really try to use both one of more general tags and more specific one, to make easier to support it.

And given less than 500 usages worldwide I would not add special icon for that.

[Adamant36]

Ok. Just thought id ask. I hadn't considered it might be a miss tagging thing. I still think there might be some things with naturally low numbers worth special rendering, but this could, likely, not be one of them.

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

On 4. Jul 2018, at 08:57, Mateusz Konieczny ***@***.***> wrote: I am tempted to classify it as result of stupid tagging scheme and continue to ignore it (it should be tourism=attraction attraction=aquarium, unfortunately nobody spotted it).

that would be far worse. tourism=attraction is not saying anything meaningful, it is a way to drop a label without caring for semantics, or it is an importance flag when combined with other tags (more important than similar objects without the tag). It also would not be suitable for aquariums that aren’t attractions in their area.

[matkoniecz]

tourism=attraction is not saying anything meaningful

that is why it would be tourism=attraction + attraction=aquarium, not bare tourism=attraction

It also would not be suitable for aquariums that aren’t attractions in their area.

tourism=aquarium is not better for that

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

On 4. Jul 2018, at 10:07, Mateusz Konieczny ***@***.***> wrote: tourism=attraction is not saying anything meaningful that is why it would be tourism=attraction + attraction=aquarium, not bare tourism=attraction

what would this change for this style? Either you render a label for any attraction (i.e. not specific to the feature, and people could abuse this for label dropping, where questioning the tagging might be difficult (how do you verify something is a tourist attraction?)), or if you check for t=attraction plus attraction=aquarium you have not won anything.

[matkoniecz]

what would this change for this style?

This style (and all other data consumers) would not require special support for tourism=aquarium, support for tourism=attraction would be sufficient.

[dieterdreist]

you can propose it on the tagging mailing list, but attraction currently is mostly used for animals in captivity and attractions in theme parks, like roller coasters https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/attraction#values

[sorcrosc]

Il giorno mar, 03/07/2018 alle 23.57 -0700, Mateusz Konieczny ha scritto:

> there's only between 300 and 500 of them in the world anyway I am tempted to classify it as result of stupid tagging scheme and continue to ignore it (it should be tourism=attraction attraction=aquarium, unfortunately nobody spotted it).

I consider tourism=attraction stupid tagging, unless it’s used for things described by the attraction=* key, but this probably means tourism=attraction is indeed unneeded. Anyway a tourism=aquarium is not a thing like this as you seem to think. It’s not a pool you can look at along the road, it’s a facility where you go and that you visit like a museum. Eventually inside the aquarium there is something to map as attraction=*

[polarbearing]

On the wiki zoo page, it explicitly recommends to use tourism=aquarium and not a zoo subtype.
Zoo is rendered with its name without icon, it would not hurt to do the same for aquarium.
colour=tourism brown

[polarbearing]

tourism=aquarium 683x
attraction=aquarium 12x
aquarium=yes 11x
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Atourism%3Daquarium - approved by voting 2014

[polarbearing]

When this issue was discussed in 2016, the usage was cited with 113w+132n = 243 taggings.
When we have now about 700 mapped, that is probably all aquariums that exist worldwide.

@ivan-rsm in #3691 - the reason we don't render a symbol for a zoo is that it has a scalable label, and we don't know yet how to handle symbols in such cases, see #3284.

Currently aquarium is rendered with its building label, if it is mapped as a building, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/18330093 as example.

It would not hurt to label any aquarium (node or way, independent of the building label) with the tourism colour like a zoo. Label scaling would not be necessary since an aquarium is rarely a large campus.

[kocio-pl]

When we have now about 700 mapped, that is probably all aquariums that exist worldwide.

I am not sure if this is all - look at this line:

I have heard interesting idea to estimate how complete is tagging for a given type of objects (probably on some SotM video): when it comes closer to 100%, the curve is asymptotically getting flat, and in last 2 years it looks more steep.

[Adamant36]

I have heard interesting idea to estimate how complete is tagging for a given type of objects (probably on some SotM video): when it comes closer to 100%, the curve is asymptotically getting flat, and in last 2 years it looks more steep.

I think there was a blog post or diary entry awhile back about shop mapping in the UK and how's its proportional to the amount of people mapping them. If I remember correctly it was based on theory about how new species of bugs in the amazon are found at the rate of entomologist looking for them. So you can't use the current number of known bug species as an indicator of how many actual bug species are out there. I could see how the same logic would apply to tagging. It probably tends to tapper off at the end because as un-mapped items becomes more sparse and harder to find mappers lose interest and move on to other things. Or they have just reached an "I'm done mapping this particular feature" threshold collectively.

As far as aquariums goes, on Wikipedia it says there are over 200, but its not more specific. Whereas the Association of Zoo's and Aquariums, whoever they are, says there are 233 aquarium's accredited through them. So my personal guess based on that is that there's probably more then 200 but less then 1000. Some places tagged as aquariums in OSM might be addons to zoos or something like that also. So the tagging numbers for them could be slightly over inflated or just more broad then normal.

[matkoniecz]

and how's its proportional to the amount of people mapping them

Yes, flattening of curve may mean that people run out of things to map or that OSM run out of people mapping things.

But steep curve indicates that neither of this happened, what indicates that there are still aquariums to map.

EDIT: for people using this tag - can you reply to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tourism%3Daquarium#plant.3F ?

[nc011]

This issue should be re-opened and fixed. tourism=aquarium is now:

• approved tagging
• well documented
• used over 1,200 times
• used globally
• supported by iD editor as a preset
• consistent with other tagging (e.g. tourism=zoo and tourism=museum)

There is no reason not to render in the same way as zoos (or even improve on this by adding a fish icon or similar to the rendering).

[imagico]

Use is world wide but for a relatively large variety of things.

Most uses seem to be for some public display of aquatic life, but that in some regions includes places where display is related to sale as pets (and sometimes also as food).

Use of the tag on polygons seems to be predominantly on individual buildings featuring tanks/pools with aquatic life. Outdoor pools/ponds are also tagged quite a bit. The tag is rarely used for larger facilities with multiple buildings and/or outdoor pools. That is probably partly because most larger facilities do not exclusively feature water tanks with aquatic life but also other exhibits/attractions and will therefore be tagged accordingly.

Documentation on the wiki so far does not provide any guidance regarding semantic delineation of the tag towards others.

Bottom line: Even if we wanted to render the tag now (which i am not sure we would) - it would not be quite clear what kind of use the rendering should support. Given use of the tag in a similar fashion as tourism=zoo (i.e. for larger facilities consisting of multiple buildings/pools) is quite rare rendering it the same way does not seem a good idea.

[nc011]

is related to sale as pets (and sometimes also as food)

As documented in the wiki, such instances would be a tagging mistake (should be shop=pet + pet=fish though not sure about restaurant tanks!). Without detailed analysis, I don't suppose any of us know exactly how many of these mistakes there are (and what percentage of tagging they account for). But, since aquaria are such important tourist attractions, I would suggest rendering some false positives is much better than not rendering any aquaria at all.

Use of the tag on polygons seems to be predominantly on individual buildings featuring tanks/pools with aquatic life.

Yes, I suppose this makes sense. Even the largest aquaria will often have their tanks indoors, sometimes in just one large building. I know the "National Sea Life Centre" in the UK [1] is just one large building, but with many individual displays inside.

That is probably partly because most larger facilities do not exclusively feature water tanks with aquatic life but also other exhibits/attractions and will therefore be tagged accordingly.

Hmm. I'm not sure I quite understand. The same could be said of zoos too, right? There are animal enclosures (indoor and out), cafes, outdoor seating areas etc. But the overall campus is tagged as a zoo. Would seem the same could be true for aquaria.

I would wager that it is probably partly because they aren't being rendered currently (the typical chicken/egg argument I'm sure you get all the time!).

I recently edited two large aquaria which were both just mapped as tourism=attraction because at least that is rendered. Seeing as aquaria are such big tourist attractions, I can see why editors might chose to tag for the renderer in this instance (especially since tourism=attraction isn't wrong, it's just not specific).

Documentation on the wiki so far does not provide any guidance regarding semantic delineation of the tag towards others.

I have raised this in the OSM Community forum

it would not be quite clear what kind of use the rendering should support. Given use of the tag in a similar fashion as tourism=zoo (i.e. for larger facilities consisting of multiple buildings/pools) is quite rare rendering it the same way does not seem a good idea.

Assuming we ignore the incorrectly tagged aquaria, I would suggest rendering similar to a zoo for the campus style aquaria (e.g., [2]) and maybe just rendering the name for those inside their own building (e.g., [1]). A current workaround for an aquarium building is to tag the building name (which is rendered) as the aquarium name, but this is probably also tagging for the renderer in a lot of instances.

It would be nice in both cases to use a little fish icon but understand the difficulties around that.

[imagico]

Again - although i have explained this too many times already: We aim to create a map for the world wide OSM community. And we do so based on looking at how tags are actually used and where this tag use is reasonably consistent world wide we look at how we can support such with a suitable rendering. Discussion of ought-to-be tagging from some subjective perspective on what is and what is not correct use of tags that does not derive from observations in the data is not our concern. Suggesting design ideas that target a tag use concept that applies to maybe a few percent of actual uses of the tag is decidedly not helpful.

If you want to see this rendered you should:

• look at the data
• identify patterns in mapping that are consistent globally across cultural and geographic differences
• document these patterns publicly and provide guidance to mappers how to map this way that does not depend on a certain cutural predisposition
• develop a rendering paradigm that provides specific targeted positive support for the consensus tag use and that fits consistently into our overall design paradigm (if necessary adjusting existing design)

[nc011]

Discussion of ought-to-be tagging from some subjective perspective on what is and what is not correct use of tags that does not derive from observations in the data is not our concern.

Sure, which is why I have posted that discussion in the community forums.

• look at the data
• identify patterns in mapping that are consistent globally across cultural and geographic differences
• document these patterns publicly

I analysed the overpass turbo export for tourism=aquarium and found:

• 1,302 instances of tourism=aquarium globally

• Of these, 1,232 instances (94.6%) were clean from specific excluded words (e.g., "shop", "pet")

• Of these, 1,016 instances (82.4%) of these were tagged with a name (suggesting they're more than just a tank)

• Of these, 691 (68.0%) either contained at least one of the words "aquarium", "oceanarium" or "dolphinarium" (or a translation) in their name fields, or website or description fields. Or I was able to manually verify that they were an aquarium through a web search.

This is likely to be an underestimate as I'm sure I will have missed some in my web searching. However, it is also possible that some "fish tanks" will have been included if named "aquarium".

• Of these, 362 (52.4%) were tagged with building=*. Additionally, 53 (7.7%) were mapped as a way or relation but not as a building.

Common themes for non-matches included:

• tagging marine science/education/visitor centres (n=26, 8.0% tagged in English)
• tagging individual exhibits (e.g. "otters" or "shark experience")
• tagging of some "aquatic parks" which seemed more like a theme park
• likely tagging mistakes of aquatic shops but difficult to verify in languages other than my own (English)

does not depend on a certain cutural predisposition

I found no evidence of issues with cultural biases. Aquariums were commonly tagged as such in N. & S. America, Europe, Asia. Africa is sparsely mapped. I don't think anyone has mentioned any issues in this thread why there may be any problems with this tagging.

develop a rendering paradigm that provides specific targeted positive support for the consensus tag use and that fits consistently into our overall design paradigm (if necessary adjusting existing design)

I thrown a couple of ideas out but clearly this is for community discussion, which I imagine might benefit from re-opening of this issue.

[matkoniecz]

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-of-aquariums/102370/7

This map will show aquariums in the UK and IE mapped as tourism=aquarium as a general tourist thing. It ahould perhaps show larger ones a bit sooner, but it does show them.
When deciding whether to show them I did look at tag usage and found that it wasn’t a major problem.

[imagico]

Thanks for the pointer. The UK and Ireland account for 55 of 1399 features with the tag, almost all of the polygons there are also tagged as buildings.

Globally, the big users of the tag are the US (187), India (177) and Japan (136).

[dieterdreist]

there is also small use of historic=aquarium https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23502331