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
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.
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 +
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
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
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 =
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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)
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
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
