Consider moving some POIs to new infrastructure, other layers

[nvkelso]

Following up from discussion in #706, if we create a new infrastructure layer for putting power lines, gas lines and other "utility" infrastructure, should we also move some of the related POIs into the same layer, or leave them in the pois layer?

For instance, power_pole and power_tower are paired with power lines.

But there are many other values that could be included (maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't). For instance:

• should all man_made features go here?
• bbq
• amenity: life_ring
• amenity: picnic_table

The pro: Moving features into a dedicated infrastructure layer would mean there's less chance of them getting displayed mixed in with regular business pois, but...

The con: it also increases the complexity of where to find things to build the map style.

We had been discussing centralizing even more "poi" like features into the pois layer – we do this now for shops and other tags present on buildings, we peal those off and put them into the pois layer leaving only (icon-less) label placements behind. But in the landuse layer label placements should generally have icons so we already mix this up a bit.

Where would features like amenity: bbq and amenity: life_ring and amenity: picnic_table go? Seems like most of these features could just go into an infrastructure layer just as well as a pois layer. Sure they have an amenity tag from OSM, but looking at it not knowing the history it's not clear. Less layers seems better.

[zerebubuth]

I've found it useful to imagine that someone has a style which renders everything in the pois layer with at least a generic POI icon, and then thinking whether it would make sense for something (e.g: a power pole) to show up as a generic POI.

Personally, I think BBQs and picnic tables would fit that "generic POI" description, although it's definitely a grey area. But I think showing a power pole or pylon as a generic POI would be pretty confusing.

It's a bit like when we added ferries to the roads layer, and some styles were showing everything in the roads layer as a generic road, so it looked a bit odd. I think it's useful to imagine the same situation for POIs.

[nvkelso]

Straw man proposal:

infrastructure related, move to new layer?

• adit
• bbq
• beacon
• bench
• block
• bollard
• communications_tower
• cross
• drinking_water
• emergency_phone
• ford
• gate
• halt
• hazard
• level_crossing
• life_ring
• lifeguard_tower
• lift_gate
• lock
• mast
• maze
• memorial
• mineshaft
• mini_roundabout
• motorway_junction
• offshore_platform
• petroleum_well
• phone
• picnic_table
• post_box
• power_pole
• power_tower
• power_wind
• pylon
• recycling
• shower
• waste_basket
• waste_disposal
• water_point
• water_tower
• water_well
• watering_place
• windmill

move to landuse layer?

• tree

move to earth layer?

• cave_entrance
• dune - moved
• peak
• rock
• saddle
• sinkhole
• stone
• volcano

¿Should some of the polygon "natural" values currently in the landuse layer move to earth as well?

move to water layer?

• rapid
• spring

places that are destinations in their own right, stay in pois layer

• alpine_hut
• amusement_ride
• animal
• artwork
• atm
• attraction
• aviary
• carousel
• egress
• enclosure
• fishing
• geyser - but it's water related
• hot_spring - but it's water related
• information
• landmark
• lighthouse
• put_in_egress
• put_in
• slipway
• snow_cannon
• summer_toboggan
• toilets
• traffic_signals
• trailhead
• viewpoint
• wilderness_hut
• water_slide

transportation related, used enough to stay in pois layer?

• bicycle_parking
• bicycle_repair_station
• bus_stop
• car_sharing
• tram_stop

[nvkelso]

Process changed.