Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, My only observation would be that in Australia toilets and no water seems a very common combination at camp grounds. You know the kind of campground I'm talking about, with either drop toilets or unpotable water. It would probably be worthwhile making a call on the classification that applies to these kinds of camp grounds. Ian. I currently tag those: amenity=camp_site drinking_water=no toilets=no Or amenity=camp_site drinking_water=no toilets=yes toilets:disposal=pitlatrine If the camp_site is mapped as an area, you can omit the toilets=yes tag but not the drinking_water=no ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On 3 May 2015 at 15:27, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Whatever way it is cut there is a 'responsiblity', and I'd rather see the 'rules' and have the mapper make the choice from local knowledge rather than pass it to some remote person who can only judge it from a yes/no answer. I'm in also in favour of subjective decisions, when we need a subjective decision, to be made close to the source. However, there are some tags that simply aim to group objective facts by applying a ruleset to them. From the description this looks like one of those cases. I look to see what amenity a campsite has, look up the proposal, and decide on a category to assign it to. I can choose to list the amenities too if I want. People might misinterpret the ruleset, and meanwhile, we are losing hard data about the amenities. Is there supposed to be a subjective step that I'm missing? That is you look at all the amenity, and make a judgement call on the category? Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 17:43 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote: Is there supposed to be a subjective step that I'm missing? That is you look at all the amenity, and make a judgement call on the category? Do you mean when using the proposed camp_site= tag Ian ? No, no scope or need for subjective here. I personally get a bit annoyed when OSmers use subjective like its a swear word but here, no need for it. The steps nominated represent a reasonably consistent progression. And very simple tests to see what level we are talking about. It could be compared to using highway=. I'd be pretty surprised if you have not used that at some stage. But in fact, the interface to camp_site= is heaps cleaner than to highway= ! Whats the basic difference between residential and unclassified, how many houses along the side of a primary road need be there ? And if we tag =track, suddenly different rendering rules seem to apply. Truth is, we like to classify things, places and people into groups, it is how we handle the complexity of the world, we do it unconsciously and often blur the edges. But we need to do it ! David Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: The corresponding categories may be better held in a software ruleset, and the mapper just enumerate the amenities on the campsite that they are aware of. Agreed. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:35 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: It could be compared to using highway=. Yes, and highway is terrible ;-) Truth is, we like to classify things, places and people into groups, it is how we handle the complexity of the world, we do it unconsciously and often blur the edges. But we need to do it ! No, that's what mere humans do. ;-) We are OSMers, and we're designing a schema. I am 100% with Ian on this one. If there's no need to blur edges, as you put it, why oh why would we want to introduce that fuzziness into our data? Sensing that we may be at an impasse, I would at least insist that mappers are strongly encouraged to also enter information about specific amenities, even if they additionally use some fuzzy summarization tag. And app designers should make use of those specific tags, even if they additionally unpack the summarized tags. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
Its not mapping for the renderer but is about mapping in such a way that the data is usable. Agreed that we should map in such a way that makes the data most usable. I think raw data is more usable for app designers. You seem to think composite tags with fuzzy definitions are more usable. I could be wrong. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Re campsites
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Adrian Plaskitt adrianplask...@hotmail.com wrote: Greetings all. I think toilets and presence of drinking water should be separate pieces of information easily obvious to any user. While all campsites with drinking water will have toilets, the reverse is often not true in NSW. Hmm.. I've camped at sites with water but no developed toilets. What is more common though is a campsite with water, but no developed water: - developed, potable water (drinking_water=yes) - available clean water (spring) - available untreated water (potable if filtered or boilet) - compromised water (difficult or impossible to make potable) - no water seasonally - no water in any season (drinking_water=no) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Re campsites
Greetings all. I think toilets and presence of drinking water should be separate pieces of information easily obvious to any user. While all campsites with drinking water will have toilets, the reverse is often not true in NSW. I was at one last weekend - fairly large and popular ( room for 30 or 40 tents and vans), within 2 hours drive from sydney, and it had no water except for unreliable tank water. ( plenty last weekend lol). http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/Dharug-National-Park/Mill-Creek-campground/camping This information is of interest to cycle tourists particularly, who need to manage water supplies quite carefully. It is depressing to get to the campsite only to realise you have to cycle another 10ks to get water. So I would suggest the second tier be basic plus toilets without an assumption about water. I do realise cycle tourists are only a small user group and will probably use other more detailed resources though. Cheers Adrian Sent from my iPhone On 3 May 2015, at 10:02 pm, talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-au digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: camp sites (Ian Sergeant) -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 17:43:11 +1000 From: Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com To: Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com Cc: OSM - Talk-au talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] camp sites Message-ID: CALDa4Y+PKFmM7V+gZDb_aCxgwgLYiUCs24NDcGpTYsL=fey...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On 3 May 2015 at 15:27, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Whatever way it is cut there is a 'responsiblity', and I'd rather see the 'rules' and have the mapper make the choice from local knowledge rather than pass it to some remote person who can only judge it from a yes/no answer. I'm in also in favour of subjective decisions, when we need a subjective decision, to be made close to the source. However, there are some tags that simply aim to group objective facts by applying a ruleset to them. From the description this looks like one of those cases. I look to see what amenity a campsite has, look up the proposal, and decide on a category to assign it to. I can choose to list the amenities too if I want. People might misinterpret the ruleset, and meanwhile, we are losing hard data about the amenities. Is there supposed to be a subjective step that I'm missing? That is you look at all the amenity, and make a judgement call on the category? Ian. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20150503/5e6bbae4/attachment-0001.html -- Subject: Digest Footer ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 95, Issue 3 ** ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
