Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
So far I have created different nodes (or areas if known) for different amenities and linked them by means of a site relation. The ones I typically added to the camp_sites I mapped are amenity=restaurant, amenity=bar and amenity=shower. I believe this is the correct way to do it as it allows for different attributes for different amenities. For example if the restaurant has other opening hours than the bar you can map that. The site relation tells that the amenities all belong to the camp_site. However, I do not know how this is rendered in practice. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:23 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 09:42 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:11 PM, David Bannon wrote Are we better saying - tourism=camp_site toilets=yes sanitary_dump_station=yes amenity=showers fee=yes Yes. Because camp sites will defy categorization. No, sorry, I don't think that works either ! Looking at a typical commercial book that describes camp sites, you expect to see a list, maybe a long one, things like toilets, water, showers, laundary, BBQ, fire place and so one. Many of these are already in amenity=*. But its silly to do on one node or area - tourism=camp_site name=Happy Campers Rest amenity=bbq amenity=fireplace amenity=bench amenity=waste_disposal So, I'd need to map each as an individual node. A search of the data will not necessarily associate the BBQ with Happy Campers Rest Caravan Park. Thats just as silly. Someone making a map wants to see one object with these attributes so they can decide what to render and how to render it. tourism=camp_site:amenity=bbq;fireplace;drinking_water;waste_disposal;toilets;showers;bench name=Happy Camper Rest Ugly but works in terms of associating the data in a meaningful way. I think we still need categories in some form so that renders have a hint of what they should do. David But definitely add official there, or a least operator. I want to know in advance if the tent symbol on the map represents a place I can comfortably stay without getting woken up at 5am by a farmer with a shotgun * -Bryce * Been there, done that. ** Also add stay_limit=7 nights, internet_access=wlan, camp_host=no, network=, campfire_permitted=season, ranger_programs, website. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On 25/03/2015 6:34 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: Ad 2: I oppose the definition of new attributes in this proposal as each of them ears a separate discussion if needed. I do not want to mix the discussions. I agree. Each new attribute should be a separate proposal, discussion and voting. There is no requirement to have them all dealt with together. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Warin suggested new category names and implied meanings. Think it was a quick draft, I have a counter quick draft along same lines. On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 11:06 +1100, Warin wrote: None= nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle. Basic = None + a toilet Standard = Basic + water Comfort = Standard + shower First Class = Comfort + cloths washing (+ power?) Luxury =Comfort + camp kitchen/swimming pool/restaurant David's model (camp_site=* ) - Basic = nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle. Standard = Basic + toilets and water Serviced = Standard + shower + power Fully_Serviced = Serviced + camp kitchen + Laundry Deluxe = Fully_Serviced + swimming pool/restaurant And define all the other aspects with additional tags. Good so far. But I am sure someone can think of an anomaly. BUT - its silly to have all those other things (mostly amenity=) on one node or area. So, now we need to define different nodes. And that leads to having to establish exact location of each. Thats too much trouble in many cases. I don't know Jan suggests a relation to link them all together, makes sense to me, but does it make sense to renderers and thus end users ? I've never used relations, seems the docs concentrate more on when not to use them. Jan, I am really sorry to be suggesting such drastic changes to your proposal so late but I think might be more acceptable to the community. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Before I update the proposal let me try to summarize where we stand: 1. There are three main categories of camp_sites: designated campsites, non-designated campsites and wild camps. Non-designated campsites are important for countries without a camping culture such as Ethiopia; 2. All designated campsites have in common that they have been set up to camp and that you are allowed to camp there. We have discussed a further subclassification of the designated campsites in (1) standard campsites with more facilities, (2) basic campsites with few facilities and (3) trekking campsites. Also a star system with even more levels came up. The perception what should go in which category depends on the place in the world as well as personal experience and interest. We came up with a draft list of minimal requirements for the standard campsite. That list could develop to the criterion to separate these subclasses; 3. The proposed definition of the basic campsite is very close to the existing tourism=caravan_site; 4. A more detailed description of a campsite requires many more attributes, some of which exist such as (internet access), some of which have been proposed a few years ago (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site) but never reached the voting stage and some of which are completely new. The current proposal does not address these attribute tags; 5. No clarity exists how we best can handle the potentially many amenities that came with a campsite: amenity=aaa;bbb;ccc under the tourism=camp_site tage or a site relation with a node for each amenity. The latter approach has been in the proposal from the beginning; 6. A new namespace tag should be defined for the wild camp. It depreciates impromptu=yes; 7. In some situations large areas have been identified where parking is allowed, but without specific provisions for camping (for example in a park where it is allowed to camp anywhere at least 200m from the lake). This situation should be removed from the proposal as it is not really a campsite So the main questions to the group: 1. Do we want the subclassification of the designated campsites in the proposal? 2. Do we want to include ideas for new attributes in this proposal? Ad 1: I am still in favour of the subclassification. When you are travelling you will be aware of regional differences (I know how an Kenyan campsite typically differs from a German one) and if the classification is too difficult a high level of detailing is possible with attribute tags. Before I am off to Africa again I'll download all campsite related raw data. I would hope that the classes and subclasses would be rendered differently and that I get all additional details from the raw list. I would also hope that special interest sites like iOverlander would show all details I am looking for. Ad 2: I oppose the definition of new attributes in this proposal as each of them ears a separate discussion if needed. I do not want to mix the discussions. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl Before I update the proposal ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
I like the direction this is going. A couple of things come to mind though. If we use the model requiring different amenities to flesh out the description of the site that will require a separate node for each of them. The nodes will be hard to place unless you actually visit the campground in question. Being an armchair mapper I use the Internet to determine a great many of the details of the things I map. I won't be able to add nodes using that scenario. The category approach might be easier except in the cases where a site has all of the basics but only some of the luxury items; which category applies? Relations make a lot of sense except they are tricky to get right. Noobies will inevitably screw them up. Plus, I'm still looking for a way to force simple site relations to render on my Garmin. I realize this is not a propoer issue to raise here but I also know some of you are wanting a way to use the data you've added to OSM to help find these places at vacation time. Just a few thoughts to add to the mix... On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 3:43 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Warin suggested new category names and implied meanings. Think it was a quick draft, I have a counter quick draft along same lines. On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 11:06 +1100, Warin wrote: None= nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle. Basic = None + a toilet Standard = Basic + water Comfort = Standard + shower First Class = Comfort + cloths washing (+ power?) Luxury =Comfort + camp kitchen/swimming pool/restaurant David's model (camp_site=* ) - Basic = nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle. Standard = Basic + toilets and water Serviced = Standard + shower + power Fully_Serviced = Serviced + camp kitchen + Laundry Deluxe = Fully_Serviced + swimming pool/restaurant And define all the other aspects with additional tags. Good so far. But I am sure someone can think of an anomaly. BUT - its silly to have all those other things (mostly amenity=) on one node or area. So, now we need to define different nodes. And that leads to having to establish exact location of each. Thats too much trouble in many cases. I don't know Jan suggests a relation to link them all together, makes sense to me, but does it make sense to renderers and thus end users ? I've never used relations, seems the docs concentrate more on when not to use them. Jan, I am really sorry to be suggesting such drastic changes to your proposal so late but I think might be more acceptable to the community. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:43 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Basic = nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle. Standard = Basic + toilets and water Serviced = Standard + shower + power Fully_Serviced = Serviced + camp kitchen + Laundry Deluxe = Fully_Serviced + swimming pool/restaurant When we were looking for a campsite, we often visited [1]. The list of features they show is much longer than any of you have in mind. Some of the criteria we based our holiday on, were the size of the pitches and whether dogs are allowed ( a number, not just yes/no) For other people the availability of animation for children is important (should be part of deluxe IMHO). Should all this information be available in OSM ? regards m [1] http://www.eurocampings.co.uk/ [2] http://www.eurocampings.co.uk/belgium/luxembourg/la-roche-en-ardenne/campsite-floreal-la-roche-101407/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
What we discuss here is a classification of campgrounds. In addition we need tags that spell out available facilities. Those tags should be separate discussions (this is already complex enough to bring to closure :-( ). See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site for ideas on the tble. Ideas enough, but consensus... On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 3:52 PM Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:43 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Basic = nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle. Standard = Basic + toilets and water Serviced = Standard + shower + power Fully_Serviced = Serviced + camp kitchen + Laundry Deluxe = Fully_Serviced + swimming pool/restaurant When we were looking for a campsite, we often visited [1]. The list of features they show is much longer than any of you have in mind. Some of the criteria we based our holiday on, were the size of the pitches and whether dogs are allowed ( a number, not just yes/no) For other people the availability of animation for children is important (should be part of deluxe IMHO). Should all this information be available in OSM ? regards m [1] http://www.eurocampings.co.uk/ [2] http://www.eurocampings.co.uk/belgium/luxembourg/la-roche-en-ardenne/campsite-floreal-la-roche-101407/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
I agree that we should not use the star system or six categories It is becoming far too complex for mappers and renderers. This level of refinement must be achieved with additional attributes or extra amenities in a relation. I really do want to keep *non-designated* as currently proposed. It was my main reason to start with the proposal. I understand it is not important in western countries, but it is vital in Africa and the Middle East. It is a site with the opportunistic blessing and amenity use of a hotel/ hostel, etc. Why do we need to keep trekking? Isn't it a special case of unimproved? Summarized my preference is - Designated - Unimproved (although I like the word Basic better) - Non-designated - Wild_camp_site: separate namespace tag for unimproved without blessing ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Using a relation in any case you see all amenities: when I find a campground on the map I see a restaurant in its direct neighbourhood, etc., even if the relation isn't handled at all by the renderer. I am not so afraid of mapping relations. The site relation is very simple. If I don't know the exact position of the buildings I just use different nodes close to one another; this is not worse than using a single node for a campground. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Jan, I looked at the link to your home page in the email - wow! It looks like you've been all over Africa in that special truck. If the other taggers haven't looked, check out the link in his email signature. I feel that you know what you are talking about - if you think there needs to be a non-designated tag for his situation, I think you have the experience to say they exist. Non-designated seems a little odd (informal is a synonym) - but I liked your word opportunistic I really like cascading values, like the list I made earlier. Then the value list as I see it is: Designated Unimproved Opportunistic Informal Trekking Opportunistic- A designated camp site that is operated by an adjacent business when local demand for camping space occurs. Amenities offered are usually part of the permanent business, such as a motel. Particularly common in developing countries. I suggested trekking sites because my experience says that very remote camp sites in wilderness parks are nice - but shouldn't be given an icon similar to a formal camp site or even informal ones like a turnout, because of severe access restrictions. We don't want to trick anyone into thinking there is anything other than a good tent pitch (no car access, no amenities, etc), as the assumption of shelter, food, access or water in a remote environment (and it turns out there is nothing) could kill someone. If you feel they need to not be included now, or in another tag, then drop it. I want there to be a big separation between designated, informal, and trekking. Javbw On Mar 26, 2015, at 5:42 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I agree that we should not use the star system or six categories It is becoming far too complex for mappers and renderers. This level of refinement must be achieved with additional attributes or extra amenities in a relation. I really do want to keep non-designated as currently proposed. It was my main reason to start with the proposal. I understand it is not important in western countries, but it is vital in Africa and the Middle East. It is a site with the opportunistic blessing and amenity use of a hotel/ hostel, etc. Why do we need to keep trekking? Isn't it a special case of unimproved? Summarized my preference is Designated Unimproved (although I like the word Basic better) Non-designated Wild_camp_site: separate namespace tag for unimproved without blessing ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 19:36 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote: .that will require a separate node for each of them. The nodes will be hard to place unless you actually visit the campground in Indeed Dave, thats my worry with this model. Same applies for survey people in many cases. I'd need to walk around the whole ground, people may well ask what I'm up to ? IMHO these amenities are not stand alone, they are attributes of the camp ground itself. For things like fire places and BBQ, might be one for every pitch. I'm not into micro mapping ! And if we map them as individual nodes, should they be marked private ? Don't want them rendered in some cases, people may they think they are public assess. But the Camp operator might want to map his whole ground and that would make sense. Sigh Relations make a lot of sense except they are tricky to get right. Noobies will inevitably screw them up. Indeed. Especially as there is no example of the tagging on the wiki. An active discouragement to their use ? David David's model (camp_site=* ) - Basic = nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle. Standard = Basic + toilets and water Serviced = Standard + shower + power Fully_Serviced = Serviced + camp kitchen + Laundry Deluxe = Fully_Serviced + swimming pool/restaurant ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On 26/03/2015 7:25 AM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: Using a relation in any case you see all amenities: when I find a campground on the map I see a restaurant in its direct neighbourhood, etc., even if the relation isn't handled at all by the renderer. I am not so afraid of mapping relations. The site relation is very simple. If I don't know the exact position of the buildings I just use different nodes close to one another; this is not worse than using a single node for a campground. I think it is better than the single node as it makes it easy for a mapper to move the relevant node to the correct position when known. Need to start another topic for this? That would separate it out from established, unofficial and wild campings. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Dave, IMHO these amenities are not stand alone, they are attributes of the camp ground itself. For things like fire places and BBQ, might be one for every pitch. I'm not into micro mapping ! This is correct for BBQ's, but not for big amenities like restaurants, bars and shops, which sometimes are and sometimes are not accessible for the general public. This is useful information. And if we map them as individual nodes, should they be marked private ? Don't want them rendered in some cases, people may they think they are public assess. But the Camp operator might want to map his whole ground and that would make sense. Sigh Relations make a lot of sense except they are tricky to get right. Noobies will inevitably screw them up. Indeed. Especially as there is no example of the tagging on the wiki. An active discouragement to their use ? Why can't we make an example then. Site relations are much simpler than relations for bus routes and turn restrictions . ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 15:49 +0100, Marc Gemis wrote: When we were looking for a campsite, we often visited [1]. The list of features they show is much longer than any of you have in mind. Indeed, that list was 1 minute of thought ! ... Should all this information be available in OSM ? Yes, absolutely. But we need develop a sensible model so it can go in easily and be used easily. And we are a long way from there IMHO. Do need active involvement from campers, we are a diverse lot ... David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Temperature=
On 12/03/2015 9:20 PM, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: Warin, you have a 50/50 split. Maybe it's better to try to address the issues and re-vote the proposal? We could have a good tag, but we are going towards a barely accepted one. My main concern is not even that we don't have the vast majority support, but that the proposal hasn't provided a clear answer to some open questions. I have moved this back into the comments phase. Made a few changes - longer explanations. Deleted a few subjective values. Added seasonal and limit methods. I'll start a new RFC mark 2. I'll also announce it on the German forum to avoid the situation of people seeing the vote as the stage to make comments. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Need to start another topic for this? That would separate it out from established, unofficial and wild campings. Makes sense. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 20:42 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: I really do want to keep non-designated as currently proposed. It was my main reason to start with the proposal. I understand it is not important in western countries, but it is vital in Africa and the Middle East. It is a site with the opportunistic blessing and amenity use of a hotel/ hostel, etc. I agree Jan, these things exist in Australia too. But I have to ask, are they really non-designated ? I have used ones that sound pretty much what you describe. I'd think of them as having been designated by the land owner. Or at least loco parentis owner. In my category model, we are not describing anything about owner or business arrangements, we leave that to other tags. We describe only what is apparently there. So, if its got toilets and water available via the adjoining business, its 'standard'. If not, 'basic'. David Why do we need to keep trekking? Isn't it a special case of unimproved? Summarized my preference is Yes, I suspect 'trekking' is the odd one out here and might be better dealt with in a subsequent proposal. * Designated * Unimproved (although I like the word Basic better) * Non-designated * Wild_camp_site: separate namespace tag for unimproved without blessing I am uncomfortable with words like designated, unimproved - they indicate we know far too much of the history and legal status of the site. Lets just stick to what we can see there now. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
In Africa they are non-designated. We have had situations in Ethiopia and Tanzania that the campsite was invented on the spot. The picture in the proposal gives a feeling what I am talking about. The site is the parking or the courtyard, no designated space. On the other hand lists are circulating amongst overlanders with hotels offering this service. Availability and quality can change quickly, therefore I don't want to mix with regular campsites. If a hotel has a permanent campground with amenities next to the hotel building the run like a standard campsite it is not in the non-designated category. On Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 23:03 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 20:42 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: I really do want to keep non-designated as currently proposed. It was my main reason to start with the proposal. I understand it is not important in western countries, but it is vital in Africa and the Middle East. It is a site with the opportunistic blessing and amenity use of a hotel/ hostel, etc. I agree Jan, these things exist in Australia too. But I have to ask, are they really non-designated ? I have used ones that sound pretty much what you describe. I'd think of them as having been designated by the land owner. Or at least loco parentis owner. In my category model, we are not describing anything about owner or business arrangements, we leave that to other tags. We describe only what is apparently there. So, if its got toilets and water available via the adjoining business, its 'standard'. If not, 'basic'. David Why do we need to keep trekking? Isn't it a special case of unimproved? Summarized my preference is Yes, I suspect 'trekking' is the odd one out here and might be better dealt with in a subsequent proposal. * Designated * Unimproved (although I like the word Basic better) * Non-designated * Wild_camp_site: separate namespace tag for unimproved without blessing I am uncomfortable with words like designated, unimproved - they indicate we know far too much of the history and legal status of the site. Lets just stick to what we can see there now. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - temperature (mark 2)
On 26/03/2015 11:03 AM, Warin wrote: Hi, I have moved this proposal back into the Comments phase, where ideas and comments can be dealt with, rather than the Voting phase where a change makes the previous votes invalid. Changes? More verbose. A very small sample from the OSM data base. Maximum and Minimum limits. Seasonal/time entry. A reduction in values. Forgot the link ! https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Temperature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New Key:indoor wiki page
On 24/03/2015 3:23 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Tagging list folks may wish to track or comment on: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:indoor Status is listed as proposed .. no RFC? I've added another warning. And a link to an indoor page. There is a nice indoor page .. in German that has a comment that it should be translated into English. Looks like most of the work on this is being done by Germans .. so may be it should stay (for the moment) in German? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/indoor Good Luck guys. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Dave, I think we are after different things. Your proposal focuses on availability of services, while mine tells more about the relation between the camper and the land owner: - Designated: permission to camp, most likely the place is still there tomorrow, service offering (whatever it is) is stable, publicly announced as campground; - Non-designated: permission to camp, policy and services may change overnight, not publicly announced as campground (no signs, no listings); - Wild: no permission to camp (but no prohibition either), sometimes a policy, situation may change overnight, not announced. Regards, Jan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Sorry Jan, cannot find the proposal page quickly. But I think we may be arguing about the meaning of designated ? If a commercial operation 'allows' its park or courtyard to be used this way, then I'd suggest they are, to some degree 'designating' it. Just by not moving people on. In the same way extensive use a tag in OSM makes it 'official'. Under my category scheme, we don't use the word designated at all. We describe just what is apparently there. Perhaps an extra tag needs be developed to indicate its less formal basis but I am not sure of even that. Please look at the words again - David's model (camp_site=* ) - Basic = nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle. Standard = Basic + toilets and water Serviced = Standard + shower + power Fully_Serviced = Serviced + camp kitchen + Laundry Deluxe = Fully_Serviced + swimming pool/restaurant David On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 22:53 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: In Africa they are non-designated. We have had situations in Ethiopia and Tanzania that the campsite was invented on the spot. The picture in the proposal gives a feeling what I am talking about. The site is the parking or the courtyard, no designated space. On the other hand lists are circulating amongst overlanders with hotels offering this service. Availability and quality can change quickly, therefore I don't want to mix with regular campsites. If a hotel has a permanent campground with amenities next to the hotel building the run like a standard campsite it is not in the non-designated category. On Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 23:03 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 20:42 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: I really do want to keep non-designated as currently proposed. It was my main reason to start with the proposal. I understand it is not important in western countries, but it is vital in Africa and the Middle East. It is a site with the opportunistic blessing and amenity use of a hotel/ hostel, etc. I agree Jan, these things exist in Australia too. But I have to ask, are they really non-designated ? I have used ones that sound pretty much what you describe. I'd think of them as having been designated by the land owner. Or at least loco parentis owner. In my category model, we are not describing anything about owner or business arrangements, we leave that to other tags. We describe only what is apparently there. So, if its got toilets and water available via the adjoining business, its 'standard'. If not, 'basic'. David Why do we need to keep trekking? Isn't it a special case of unimproved? Summarized my preference is Yes, I suspect 'trekking' is the odd one out here and might be better dealt with in a subsequent proposal. * Designated * Unimproved (although I like the word Basic better) * Non-designated * Wild_camp_site: separate namespace tag for unimproved without blessing I am uncomfortable with words like designated, unimproved - they indicate we know far too much of the history and legal status of the site. Lets just stick to what we can see there now. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - temperature (mark 2)
Hi, I have moved this proposal back into the Comments phase, where ideas and comments can be dealt with, rather than the Voting phase where a change makes the previous votes invalid. Changes? More verbose. A very small sample from the OSM data base. Maximum and Minimum limits. Seasonal/time entry. A reduction in values. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
