Category: Cave (exists but not available and no opening hours)

[Flash]

Lucio, we map by rules, not by copying things on the map; as almost everything that could be done wrong can be found on the map.

Your samples are duplicates; a parking lot with a descriptive name does not qualify for it's own POI.

[Flash]

@LucioV, can you provide your local and language expertise?  www.frasassi.com seems to indicate that the second POI might be the offices of "Consortium Frasassi".  Am I correct?  In that case it might be mappable with that name.

[LucioV]

---

@JeroenM wrote:

The reason I started this thread in the first place, is that Google doesn't seem to have a category for a this kind of hibrid.. a cave with opening hours, guides, etc.

Given this additional information, what do you suggest?

Thanks.

Jeroen

---

@JeroenM as i wrote you, the map is full of nice examples. Buildings, activities, museums, linked to geographical POI. As long as these activities really exist, i think it's correct to create POI for them. 😉

[LucioV]

---

@GreggG wrote:

@LucioV, can you provide your local and language expertise?  www.frasassi.com seems to indicate that the second POI might be the offices of "Consortium Frasassi".  Am I correct?  In that case it might be mappable with that name.

---

Gregg, Frasassi is a geographical POI, a place (1) a "cave". Then we have parking lots and tickets, with office and open hours (2). We also have a consortium, named Frasassi (3). All together. Some of these POI shares details as like as web address.

All of these are real places, so if Jeroen wants to map a POI for a business running inside/outside/near a geographical POI i think he could do.

This is a perfect example of what i wrote regarding rules and flexibility: I prefer to map a real world, also if this is against some rule.

Best regards

[Flash]

---

All of these are real places, so if Jeroen wants to map a POI for a business running inside/outside/near a geographical POI i think he could do.

---

This is not how the map works.  There are rules for mapping features, things can't be put on the map simply because they exist but must qualify to be mapped.  Mapping a parking lot with a descriptive name is not permitted.  Even if it had a proper name, it would then be mapped as a parking lot, not a tourist attraction.

Mapping components of a feature is also not permitted unless it meets the requirement for a department.  I'm consulting with other mapping experts now to see if there is some way to properly include the ticket office on the map.  If none of them have received specific direction in the past from Google that applies then we will consult with Google.

This is a perfect example of what i wrote regarding rules and flexibility: I prefer to map a real world, also if this is against some rule.

---

You are free to create your own map and place what you wish on it; but this is not permitted on Google Maps.

I will yet again ask that you stop advising people to break the rules of the map.  It neither helps create a better map nor helps people to better map; but rather it causes them to create features subject to deletion and raises the risk that their trust will be reduced up to and including getting flagged as a spammer.

I will respond back when we figure out what to do with Grotte Di Frasassi.

[LucioV]

I will never do examples of real world mapping again. Cause this will eventually cause some mapping experts to delete useful features and places from maps.

[Csaba]

In my opinion, although "caves" are natural features, they can also be tourist attractions. We have several caves that are visited by (thousands of) tourists, there are organized and guided tours and one of them is even a UNESCO World Heritage site. What is it if not a tourist attraction? If a cave (or a waterfall) cannot be added at the moment, should these places not go on the map? 

Edit: as an archaeologist, I used to work on a cave excavation myself. It was extremely interesting but for the general public, it would not be of any interest. I'd certainly not add that cave (even as a tourist attraction) on the maps. But other archaeological sites like where the first artwork of mankind has been discovered, are worth visiting and probably millions of people would be interested. At least much more than in my corner greengrocer's (which hasn't got a "name" by the way).

[NaY]

i show many places in the map that have more then one name. same place - more then one name. it is easy to open if person want to open. 

[JeroenM]

@Flash

Thank you for your clarification. The government that runs the caves in this particular example sells the tickets as "<name cave> Cave" and does so for all it caves in the region. I visit archaeological caves where ever I get the opportunity, so I was hoping for a general guideline.

Once you had a chance to check with Google, I look forward to your guideline.

@Csaba

What I understood from @GusM is that we should always select the category that reflects the core-business or intent of the POI. In other words, the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona may be a major tourist attraction, it was build as a church. Gus also told us that when a person searches for tourist attractions, that monuments, churches, musea, etc. are added to the search results.

Personally, I only use the category Tourist Attraction when it was purposely created for tourists. Las Vegas has quiet a few of them. The "fountains of Bellagio" is in my opinion a tourist attraction and not a fountain, where the "Fontana di Trevi" in Rome is a fountain.

An archaeological site or cave is in my view a museum and not a tourist attraction. It is a place where experts preserve, guard and showcase artefacts, often in an educational manner. School kids go there on field trips.

My opinion:
Although I fully appreciate that one needs rules and guidelines, Google does have a vision of what it is trying to achieve with Google Maps. I do get the impression that this discussion is a perfect example where rules for the sake or rules, might be contra to the objectives of Google and contra to the interest of the public. Gus, has told us that Google provides us with guidelines, meaning they are not fixed rules, because Google likes the flexibility and recognises regional differences. Several times, when Gus answered questions on the forum, he said to use common sense.

To me common sense in this case is to be flexible with the guideline for natural features. The cleanest solution is to allow for opening hours (when applicable) for caves as an exception to most other natural features. The analogy that the cave is the "building" and the museum is the business inside the building, might sound reasonable, but one could also argue that there is a building, Walmart buys it and the building becomes Walmart. In other words, the museum has taken over the cave. I could also use the Rule that the cave part of the cave (how silly does this sound!) as a natural feature is not open to the public and therefore not map-able. The business is!

Jeroen

[Flash]

Hello,

I just want to make sure a few things are clear for you as you map.

---

---

one could also argue that there is a building, Walmart buys it and the building becomes Walmart. 

In the context of the map one cannot.  Google has been extremely clear how buildings are to be handled.  A building is a separate feature from the elements within it.

This actually came about from a lot of community analysis years ago, analysis in which Google participated and in the end agreed.  The mapping community realized that buildings and the features are separate and needed to be treated as such.  After all, when a business closes or moves, the building remains.  We at first had best practices on how to map such features, and then Google modified the database and mapping tools to match.

I could also use the Rule that the cave part of the cave (how silly does this sound!) as a natural feature is not open to the public and therefore not map-able. 

There is no such rule.

But you are correct about the direction from Google that you don't need to map something with the category Tourist Attraction to make is show up in such searches.  That is how the map worked 8 years ago; but it has advanced a lot since then.  The map and Google's other databases were separate at that time.  Now when you search something on the map, everything Google knows about it is applied, rather than just what is contained the editable fields in the Maps database.  A lot of what people do in attempts to improve the map is actually clutter, as Google already does the same actions by algorithm behind the scenes.  And worse than clutter; they end up trying to improve the map but instead make it worse because their data is not supplied how Google wanted it, thus confusing the algorithms.

I'll mention too that there can be exceptions to the rules.  Google, however, is the only one that can approve such exceptions.  If I was going to follow the rules strictly I would have deleted some duplicate features; but there is some benefit to it and thus we'll see if there is either past direction that allows it, or if Google can either provide new direction or an exception.