Add rendering for summer toboggan (attraction=summer_toboggan)

[geozeisig]

Expected behavior

A summer toboggan run should be rendered similar to a water slide just with a different hue.

Actual behavior

Not rendered at all.

[kocio-pl]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aattraction%3Dsummer_toboggan

[Tomasz-W]

Propably a PR for #2632 would resolve it, as toboggans should be tagged as lines with leisure=track tag due to Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dtoboggan)

[geozeisig]

A summer toboggan run is a recreational facility and is currently tagged in 2 cases of 745 with sport=toboggan.

[Melykuti]

I support this proposal, I wanted to open it myself.

Currently, the reality is that in many cases mappers tag these summer toboggan tracks (alpine coasters) for rendering with various inappropriate tags: (railway=monorail or railway=narrow_gauge or railway=miniature).

The case of roller coasters is worth considering at the same place. Partly because of the fact that the Roller Coaser DataBase (!) claims many of these summer toboggan tracks as roller coasters, partly because roller_coaster=track is an occasional tag on them (example in the next paragraph). An example alpine coaster from the RCDB is the Hasenhorn Coaster (this was the above example with monorail).

roller_coaster=track on its own doesn't render: this is an example which is an attraction=summer_toboggan. Actual roller coaster tracks include e.g. railway=light_rail or railway=narrow_gauge for rendering. For reference, this is the relevant attraction=roller_coaster proposal.

These are my observations.

Now framing the problem and suggestions:

• Would it make sense to render both attraction=summer_toboggan and roller_coaster=track ways? Maybe, but see below.
• Shall they be rendered with the same style? It's extra work to propose two styles, but the original suggestion to resemble a water slide won't work for a roller coaster. (The water slide analogue is motivated by the summer toboggan that runs in a trough, the toboggan type on rails resembles a roller coaster more.)
• Shall we require to tag roller coasters in addition to roller_coaster=track with an extra railway tag (e.g. railway=narrow_gauge) that decides how to render? This is the status quo.

Finally, my suggestion: We could agree that attraction=summer_toboggan gets some new rendering (e.g. like a water slide), independently from whether it has a roller_coaster=track tag on it. (Meaning that attraction=summer_toboggan overrules roller_coaster=track if both are rendered at some point in the future.) For the time being, we don't change the non-rendering of roller_coaster=track (that is, it doesn't render without a railway= tag).

[Tomasz-W]

@Adamant36 Can you try to make a code showing attraction=* names (even without tourism=attraction tag) in the middle of node/ way/ area?
I think this issue is not resolved, because labels of leisure=track ways are rendered very poor, and they are very low visible. Examples:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/366998569
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/173170788

[Adamant36]

@Tomasz-W, yeah I can look into it. Id imagine names on ways like leisure=track are coded in the same way as streams. Which I did some work on way back. They are pretty hard to see from your example. It seems like the distance from the way needs to be changed and maybe the color. I copied the code from water slides. So do they have the same issue?

[Tomasz-W]

@Adamant36 I mean to use label rendering of tourism=attraction for middle of nodes/ ways/ areas with attraction=* + name=* combination (even without tourism=attraction tag, because due to wiki, e.g. summer tobogans don't have to have it). I hope it's technically possible, because I think that any linear name showing won't help here, because these ways can be very bent and swirled.

[Adamant36]

@geozeisig, I'm wondering if its worth rendering summer toboggans on their own now that tracks are rendered and the wiki page for summer toboggans says they should be tagged with the track tag. So they are rendering now due to that. Any thoughts? Personally, I don't really consider them a track, but if they are already being tagged that way who am I to complain?

[Tomasz-W]

I'm also leaning to these thoughts - I'm not satisfied with current name rendering of toboggans and perfect version for me would be to have a label in the middle of toboggan route, but they are often build mapped by few parts (and mapping them as relations is not allowed by Wiki), so it would make label rendering e.g. 5x (from each one part) instead of 1x in the middle.
I'm okay with rendering these routes the same as leisure=track lines, so I would close this issue.

[geozeisig]

To map it together with a track I have not been so familiar but it works. But so are many, who then use highway=raceway, railway=miniature, bridge=yes to get it rendert.
Remains the question with the name. An example of how to solve this is Sommerrodelbahn Winterberg.

[Adamant36]

@geozeisig, I take it some aren't used for the purpose of racing? Maybe it should brought up in the mailing list or on the wiki page if they should qualify as tracks or not. So we can render them without the tag. Especially if there is a lot of miss-tagging going on to make them render. It sounds like other people don't think they are tracks either or they would just use that tag.

That would also make it easier to fix the name problem. Otherwise, we would probably have to change the name rendering of all tracks, not just this type, and other types might not need changing.

[Tomasz-W]

"Raceway" is for racing, and the idea of racing is a competition of 2 or more players, and I don't know about any tobbogans with 2 or more parallel tracks, so highway=raceway is totally missed tag here. But this is tagging issue, so we shouldn't discuss about it here, but edit wrong ones to leisure=track lines.

[Adamant36]

The wiki says that leisure=track is used for "A track for running, cycling and other non-motorised racing such as horses, greyhounds." though. So I dont see how it would be any better then raceway.

I also noticed there's a sport=toboggan. They both use the same photo on the wiki and its not clear what the difference is (as in id guess winter sport toboggans are just repurpesed during the summer to become summer toboggans or visa versa and summer toboggans aren't unique entites?). So people might be tagging them with either tag randomly. Or combining them.

I dont want to get into a tagging disscussion any more then the next person, but figuring out the differences is relevent to how or if it should be rendered and which one we go with. So I think more research is needed and a disscussion on the tagging mailing list/expansion of the wiki.

Ultimately, it might be more appropriate to go with the sport tag here instead of the attraction tag. As the wiki says "atractions are usually part of bigger venture." and to me summer taboogons sound like something thats just an attraction seasonally during the summer and not a dedicated one. So I feel like its wrong/bad tagging.

[geozeisig]

I've improved the wiki pages, so there is a difference between attraction and sports facility. Please check it. Comments on the discussion page of Wiki.
As it looks like many tracks still need to be improved.

[geozeisig]

Since there are no comments, I think that it is all right.

[geozeisig]

But there are roller coasters where there are similar difficulties. For that the tag attraction=roller_coaster is used, often in conjunction with railway=monorail or railway=miniature or railway=narrow_gauge. Because it is not a railway you can call it a tagging mistake. It is done so because attraction=roller_coaster is not rendered. Example: Chura Racer - Achterbahn

[jragusa]

IMO attraction would not be rendered in these cases and the rendering should depend to the type of transport: highway=track for toboggans and railway=miniature for attraction=roller_coster.

[polarbearing]

Summer toboggan #3436 and Rollercoaster #3596 should be considered together. The carriageway could be rails, an ice or a water channel, for which all the same kind of line can be rendered.

Question is if we need an icon, and how the ground is rendered where the carriageway is built on.

[Adamant36]

I'm not sure an icon would work for Summer toboggans. Some of them can be pretty long from what I understand, like a few miles. So it wouldn't really work. Maybe not for roller coasters either. Since its a line that crosses itself in multiple places and the center of the line would be in a weird place.

[polarbearing]

The icon would certainly not be determined by the carriageway, I full agree. The question was if these facilities have a ground area mapped, which could carry the icon.

[boothym]

I fixed some of these which were wrongly tagged as highway=raceway - but realised without it they don't appear on the map.

Of the now 840 instances, 380 of them are tagged with leisure=track - it would seem like a good idea to render them in a similar way, maybe with more of an outline or a lighter inner colour.

[Adamant36]

Sadly, I don't think 840 are enough for rendering yet. I'd be interested to know how many exist in the world though.

[jeisenbe]

There are 723 non-closed ways (lines), and 60 closed ways, but only 5 of those have area=yes, so it appears that most of these are mapped as linear features. Also, the wiki page](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:attraction%3Dsummer_toboggan) does not allow mapping as an area. Therefore it would be possible to render these without needing a database reload (required for attraction=* features which are mapped as areas).

Currently 137 of the linear ways are tagged with railway and 368 with leisure=track

While the number of features is too low to develop a unique rendering, a linear rendering identical to leisure=track or railway_miniature, starting at z15 or z16, might work to prevent this mis-tagging with railway and track or raceway tags

[martenjj]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:attraction%3Dsummer_toboggan now states (since January 2019) that leisure=track should not be used for the way because that is tagging for the renderer, only attraction=summer_toboggan should be used. The same applies to sport=toboggan unless it is used for racing, in which case leisure=track should also be used.

In order to accommodate all of these possible tagging schemes maybe the best approach would be to render both attraction=summer_toboggan and sport=toboggan in the same way as leisure=track, and ignore any area=yes.

[pnorman]

While the number of features is too low to develop a unique rendering

I think the usage is too low for any rendering, unique or otherwise.

[mkyral]

While the number of features is too low to develop a unique rendering

I think the usage is too low for any rendering, unique or otherwise.

What is the limit?

[martenjj]

Not sure if there is an official limit, but they should be rendered anyway. They are of significant tourism interest, and are large easily visible features which help with orientation.

Not having them rendered in openstreetmap-carto gives other renderers no incentive to map them either, which in turn gives those who would like to see them mapped no alternative but to tag for the renderer. According to the OSM wiki attraction=summer_toboggan is the official and the only tag that should be used, so its use should be encouraged by rendering it.

[Adamant36]

Not sure if there is an official limit, but they should be rendered anyway. They are of significant tourism interest, and are large easily visible features which help with orientation.

This has came up more then a few times in various places. The perennial problem is the problem of there just not being that many of them out there in the world (definitely not the multiple thousands needed for rendering). Which leads to a kind of circular thing where rendering won't happen until enough are mapped "because threshold for rendering", but then it's never met "because there just aren't enough IRL." Then someone brings it up again, "well, map more and get back to us" etc etc, and the cycle continues. It's a vicious circle, that just causes some things to come up repeatedly and never be rendered when maybe they should be.

IMO, There should be a lower bar for objects that are geographically "important" objects, but just don't exist that much in the world (giant ferris wheels being the other one that comes to mind). Especially in cases like this, where not rendering the objects directly goes against the purpose of the style (to encourage proper tagging). Such is life with arbitrary barriers to entry though, I guess.

[k-yle]

There are quite a few examples in New Zealand, and it's very common in those towns to orientate yourself based on these (geographically-large) attractions. Especially when reading maps.

It seems bizarre that some rare features like a guided busway are rendered with a significant level of prominence, yet summer toboggan runs aren't shown at all.

[Adamant36]

It seems bizarre that some rare features like a guided busway are rendered with a significant level of prominence, yet summer toboggan runs aren't shown at all.

From a quick glance it seems like rendering for them was added before Github and the current developers. So, I wouldn't put that on anyone here. There was probably a good reason for rendering them back in the day, but IMO they probably wouldn't be rendered now if they weren't yet and someone opened an issue about it.

[ppete2]

I would appreciate attraction=alpine_coaster and attraction=summer_toboggan to be rendered with the same design as roller_coaster=track being introduced with #4666
These 3 variants of entertainment only-tracks are quite similar as mentioned in the Wiki. They are no sports tracks and no railways.