Choose which features are notable enough

[Janjko]

For example a photo for each bike stand, or each bench is probably too much for wikimedia. So where is the line? Should we maintain a list of tags that are worthy, or a list of unworthy? A list of worthy seems safer, but it's going to be a big one.

[Discostu36]

As you can see in #7 the app will only work for buildings in the beginning and more map features will be added over time. I am not sure yet where to draw the line. Wikimedia Commons has a quite broad definition of notability. Your examples have their own categories:

• https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bicycle_parking
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Benches

[Janjko]

But those categories have low numbers of media, and mostly representative examples. If this project is a giant success, then those numbers will be thousands of more or less similar photos per country. I have a feeling that's going to produce some backlash.

[Discostu36]

You have a point. We can use this issue to discuss a hierarchy of object types that should be implemented. The only thing I am certain about is that I want to start with buildings, because they are historically relevant for a city but are usually lacking photographs.

[Janjko]

Tourism=artwork is probably one of the safer options.

[TS-R]

Some suggestions:

• tourism=attraction
• amenity=fountain
• leisure=playground
• tourism=artwork

[mnalis]

• This OsmAnd issue (Seamlessly integrate FOSS image/photo contribution osmandapp/OsmAnd#9970 (comment)) also has some discussion about Wikimedia commons requirement "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose"