Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[Jan van Bekkum]

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 
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

[Warin]

On 25/03/2015 12:38 PM, David Bannon wrote:

On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 11:06 +1100, Warin wrote:


No, not a decision for the render but information for the end user .. the most 
important person is the end user!
'Customers' first!  :-)

I don't think there are too many "end users" who look up the raw data!


The map user wants to search for the closest camp sites and then select for the 
features they want.

Agreed, whole heartedly !


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

  Is
the water drinkable ?


Yes. ... forgot to stipulate that.



BBQ, fire places, defined 'pitches', metered/unmetered power, disabled
toilets, shade, grass, cooking facilities, rec room, launching ramp,
fish cleaning facilities, internet access, pets allowed/not, child/dog
minding capability, credit card facilities .


Distractions form the major features that I'd use to separate them. .


Need a category system, for sure, but need a lot of extra data not
implied by the category.



The 'extra data' can be tagged separately? This give a clear boundary between 
the class system. And still enables the other things to be tagged.

Fee payment may cover credit cards,

shade by marking tree/s on the map,

disabled toilets as a sub tag to toilets

power is covered by a tag

pitches yet to be defined .. but a draft proposal exists,

internet .. has a tag, \

So quite a few things already covered by tags.

What I think is needed here is a simple system to separate the levels .. 
readily identified and easy to implement. The other things are, as I said, 
distractions.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[johnw]

Standard vs designated needs to be rethought. 

I would suggest designated, unimproved, informal, trekking. This would 
alleviate so many classification issues. 

Designated is a campsite. Is it for Tents? for car campers? for caravans? for 
RVs? who cares. Detail that 
This is a place where you will find amenities. What amenities? Don’t care. tag 
them on it (showers, et) 

Unimproved is a designated sites with minimal to no amenities. a road, a flat 
spot, and maybe a fire ring or a water tap. no stores, no spaces, no support. 
This is a place where people can park a car and pitch a tent. But you have some 
kind of “approval” to be there - the blessing of someone - the owner, the town, 
something. 

Informal is unimproved, but without the explicit blessing of a specific body. A 
camp near a track in the desert. A good spot on a access road on a forest. A 
spot near town that is friendly to passers-by - but there’s no official 
blessing from the town or land management agency, beyond not prohibiting 
camping outright. 

Trekking - 

An informal camp site  that is in the middle of nowhere, with severe assess 
limitations. 


This seems *much* more flexible to me.  


> On Mar 25, 2015, at 6:37 AM, David Bannon  wrote:
> 
> But you would not oppose the proposal because a particular category does
> not exist where you live/travel ?
> 
> Here in Australia (and other parts of the world) there really is a
> different type of camp ground. Its typically provided by local council
> or a local community (wanting to attract visitors).


I dont’ have a problem with it tagged as a camp site, because it has been 
chosen *as a camp site*, right?

just put a fee= tag on it. It may not have designated spaces or a water tap, 
but it is a designated camping area. 

It is an unimproved camp site. It is bare of amenities. but it is legally 
blessed (the owner/operator wants campers to show up), so it is chosen to be a 
camp site.

I like the idea of this proposal, I just think the def’s are a little off - 
they need to really be describing the type of campground as a whole, and leave 
other details to established tags - like fees, water, showers, caravans 
allowed, etc to additional tags - unless it describes the complete lack of any 
of them (designated vs unimproved).


Javbw

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 11:06 +1100, Warin wrote:

> No, not a decision for the render but information for the end user .. the 
> most important pero=son is the end user!
> 'Customers' first!  :-)
I don't think there are too many "end users" who look up the raw data!

> The map user wants to search for the closest camp sites and then select for 
> the features they want.
Agreed, whole heartedly !

> 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

And a camp ground that has a pool but no cloths washing facility ? Is
the water drinkable ?

BBQ, fire places, defined 'pitches', metered/unmetered power, disabled
toilets, shade, grass, cooking facilities, rec room, launching ramp,
fish cleaning facilities, internet access, pets allowed/not, child/dog
minding capability, credit card facilities .

Need a category system, for sure, but need a lot of extra data not
implied by the category.

> ---
> There is a similar proposal for hotels
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Awards_and_ratings

I think the range, the size of the matrix, is smaller for hotels.

> Get off your unrealistic expectations of instantaneous correct data 
Yeah, agree, we are mapping a real world ! Its analogue and it changes.

David


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[Warin]

On 25/03/2015 9:23 AM, David Bannon 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.




No, not a decision for the render but information for the end user .. the most 
important pero=son is the end user!
'Customers' first!  :-)
The map user wants to search for the closest camp sites and then select for the 
features they want.

On one node/area you would have

tourism=camp_site
name=Happy Campers Rest
fee=yes/no/number

The additional required data would be the level of services/facilities 
available. At least that is my view.
I'd think that the services/features would be like the hotel star rating system 
- the more stars the better?

The Germans use Tourist (*), Standard (**), Comfort (***), First Class () 
and Luxury (*)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_rating

Humm is there a camp site rating system too?
The Americans have some 
http://camping.about.com/cs/campgroundreviews/a/ratingsystems.htm

---
For OSM camp_sites? These words would get away from 'official', 'designated' ...
 and convey some idea?  None(*), Basic (**), Comfort (***), First Class (), 
Luxury(*) ?
Or maybe the 'None' gets no stars?
None( ), Basic (*), Standard (**), Comfort (***), First Class (), 
Luxury(*) ?

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

--
There is a similar proposal for hotels
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Awards_and_ratings
I think it failed due to an expectation that the data needs to be upto date.. 
and that won't be done on the OSM ..
the truth is that the OSM is upto date .. look how fast changes are made to 
roads when they change.
I expect the same for other features, where outdated data is found mappers 
update it.
Get off your unrealistic expectations of instantaneous correct data only being 
within OSM!
Errors occur, data does get out of date. But it gets 'fixed' fairly quickly.
Denying data entry that indicates what the end users want undermines the 
usefullness of OSM.
 




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:23 PM, David Bannon 
wrote:

> I think we still need categories in some form so that renders have a
> hint of what they should do.
>

Or, we need rendering or preprocessing that gathers up all the amenities
within a given area
or relation into table form, then looks up an appropriate symbol.

amenity=camp_ground
area=yes
+
amenity=sanitary_dump_station
amenity=drinking_water
=
amenity=camp_ground
sanitary_dump_station=yes
drinking_water=yes


---
The rendering can map anything with an operator or fee differently from
just a bare tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

While loosing faith in the proposal, I'd still like to make it work.

On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 16:18 +0900, johnw wrote:
> 
> Also - as Martin mentioned - how is the fee associated with the
> grounds change their usage?  All the car camping grounds in Japan are
> private businesses. They all charge a fee. They look almost exactly
> like a state (public) campground camp in the US. But they are private.
> the fee should just be the standard fee= tag

But you would not oppose the proposal because a particular category does
not exist where you live/travel ?

Here in Australia (and other parts of the world) there really is a
different type of camp ground. Its typically provided by local council
or a local community (wanting to attract visitors). It will have no fee,
request a donation or a nominal fee of a few dollars. Its nothing like
the camp grounds you are thinking about and needs to be described
differently. Pitches are not defined, you park where you like and
therefore usually with plenty of space between neighbours. Few or no
services, no staff. Arguably more suited to caravans or motor homes than
tents. There is a monthly magazines devoted to the subject. I have a
book with 3700 listings. 

While it may be beyond some list member's experience, it exists !

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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:11 PM, David Bannon 
wrote:

>
> OK, I'm struggling. I started answering Dave S's stuff (below) and
> realised I was really arguing away the whole catagory approach. Sigh.
>
> Are we better saying -
> tourism=camp_site
> toilets=yes
> sanitary_dump_station=yes
> amenity=showers
> fee=yes
>




Yes.
Because camp sites will defy categorization.

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

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[John Willis]

If it is a place to buy 50l of petrol with a credit card, and 200 people can 
use it a day, it's a Normal gas station. If you hand the card to a clerk or pay 
at the pump (almost every single gas station in America, and more and more in 
Japan) - it's still a gas station. 

I don't think people would expect a shop that looks like a gas station, works 
like a gas station, and has no shop to shop in to be tagged as a shop. 

I totally get its an automated system (for payment) but the facility itself is 
a normal gas station. 

The other state with mandatory gas station pumping is New Jersey. 

It's weird going to certain gas stations in Japan where the pumps are 5 meters 
in the air, and an attendant lowers the hose down with a string to pump gas in 
your car. 

Javbw


On Mar 24, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Jan van Bekkum  wrote:

>> How does the tagging differ from an unstaffed filling station where you 
>> enter your credit card and fill up the tank of your car yourself 24/7 like I 
>> seem them all over the place in the Netherlands? In the situation you 
>> describe I really prefer shop=*.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jan 
>> 
>> At these places you could fill up your SUV tank and hence they are tagged 
>> appropriately. I add:
>> 
>> amenity=fuel
>> automated=yes
>> description:en=A vending machine accepting cash in notes and/or coin that 
>> dispenses automotive fuel 24/7. Most are poorly marked and offer no other 
>> services.
>> fuel:diesel=yes/no
>> fuel:gasohol_91=yes/no
>> fuel:gasohol_95=yes/no
>> fuel:gasoline_91=yes/no
>> fuel:gasoline_95=yes/no
>> name=*
>> opening_hours=24/7
>> payment:cash=yes
>> payment:credit_cards=no
>> source=GPS, geolocated photo
>> vending=fuel
>> vending_machine=yes
> ___
> 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] Historic tower

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-23 23:15 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> start_date ? start of planning?, construction? occupation?
>
> completion of planning? construction? occupation?
>
> built_data ... is fairly simple. I like simple and plain. It would need
> more words for structures that have several 'additions', 'refurbishments',
> etc .. but the meaning is more apparent than start_date and completion_date.
>


this is already defined and solved. See here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:start_date

used more than 10M times

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Historic tower

[fly]

start_date is more universal like using it for shops and amenities and
not only for buildings is possible.

You can use start_date with construction=*, too, it only vanishes after
the construction is finished.

Have no problem with construction:start_date=* but please use
comprehensive and clear tags.

Why not invent some more tags for constructions like buildings=* if useful.

cu fly

Am 23.03.2015 um 23:15 schrieb Warin:
> start_date ? start of planning?, construction? occupation?
> 
> completion of planning? construction? occupation?
> 
> built_data ... is fairly simple. I like simple and plain. It would need
> more words for structures that have several 'additions',
> 'refurbishments', etc .. but the meaning is more apparent than
> start_date and completion_date.
>
>  On 24/03/2015 8:43 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
>> Wouldn't it make much more sense to use start_date for the starting
>> date, and completion_date for the completion date?


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

[Kotya Karapetyan]

>
> Please also have in mind the amount of traffic between plain text and html.
>

I actually wonder how relevant this is. In general, I am a proponent of
saving resources, so the less transmitted data the better. But with the
increase of internet bandwidth and the speed of available hardware, the
situation is not frozen. E.g. a good UI of a tool can reduce the time you
actually need to spend looking at the screen, reducing the amount of energy
your device consumes. Thus it may be beneficial to transmit larger chunks
of data but show information in a well-formed way. Unless someone is still
connected with a 56k modem and actually needs to wait to download data, I
don't think the size is an issue. We are not tagging videos :)

We did not talk about security issues and scripts, yet.
>

Where do you see a potential problem in Loomio (or another similar tool) as
compared to plain email?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-24 11:28 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout :

> There's no need to remove it since it's clearly understood by most people
> to mean tools, custom items, maybe even tickets to an auto show.
>


IMHO the only valid word there is "car parts", because if they don't have
car parts but they sell tickets to an auto show, you wouldn't tag that
shop=car_parts.



> So, while these observations are interesting, let's put them aside and
> discuss the issue of shop=car_parts some other day.
>


OK ;-)

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Dave Swarthout]

There's no need to remove it since it's clearly understood by most people
to mean tools, custom items, maybe even tickets to an auto show.

Motor oil is sold at a car_parts shop because it is non-volatile and
therefore poses no fire or explosion risk. This is emphatically not the
case with gasoline and its relatives. Plus, a significant profit can accrue
from its sale.

So, while these observations are interesting, let's put them aside and
discuss the issue of shop=car_parts some other day.

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> 2015-03-23 18:48 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann :
>
>> Petrol is similar to motor oil, both are fluids made from mineral oil.
>> Diesel is identical with light fuel oil. So this is clearly the same group
>> of products, especially when sold in equally small quantities. What else
>> is
>> the "etc." supposed to mean?
>>
>
>
> I think that the "etc." is indeed not helpful and I'd remove it from this
> list. Also motor oil is not a "car part" in my understanding, but it is
> typically found in shops that sell car parts, so this is why it got its way
> onto this list. But "petrol" is not on this list, is not a car part, and so
> these places should not be tagged like that IMHO. Mineral oil (I think you
> meant to say "crude oil") is the basis for lots of things, including
> plastic (e.g. also textiles), tar, lighter fuel, even coke. Now shops for
> car parts do indeed sell textiles, so the circle closes here.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> 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] Fuel shops

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-23 18:48 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann :

> Petrol is similar to motor oil, both are fluids made from mineral oil.
> Diesel is identical with light fuel oil. So this is clearly the same group
> of products, especially when sold in equally small quantities. What else is
> the "etc." supposed to mean?
>


I think that the "etc." is indeed not helpful and I'd remove it from this
list. Also motor oil is not a "car part" in my understanding, but it is
typically found in shops that sell car parts, so this is why it got its way
onto this list. But "petrol" is not on this list, is not a car part, and so
these places should not be tagged like that IMHO. Mineral oil (I think you
meant to say "crude oil") is the basis for lots of things, including
plastic (e.g. also textiles), tar, lighter fuel, even coke. Now shops for
car parts do indeed sell textiles, so the circle closes here.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-23 17:59 GMT+01:00 Jan van Bekkum :

> I agree with the proposal to have a different main tag for informal sites;
> something like tourism=wild_camp. I guess some kind of RV/trekking
> attribute would work as well, What we now are looking for is the proper
> distinction between 1, 2 and 4. It should be one attribute key to
> distinguish between the 3 cases. Does standard/basic/non-designated cover
> what we look for?
>


here are my comments to the 1,2,4 cases:

definition in the proposal:
1. Standard campgrounds (camp_site

=standard
)
- businesses or public bodies that provide guarded and staffed sites for
camping with a at least drinking water, hot showers, toilets and facilities
for dish washing and/or laundry. Usually more services such as electricity,
laundry service, swimming pool, camping store, barbecue facilities etc. are
provided. Operating the campground is a standalone and a fee is charged for
the service;

__

The value "standard" is OK by me, but I'd require far less features:
1. Standard campgrounds (camp_site

=standard
)
- businesses or public bodies that provide sometimes guarded and TYPICALLY
staffed sites for camping with a at least drinking water, showers, toilets
and facilities for dish washing and/or laundry. Usually more services such
as electricity, hot showers, laundry service, swimming pool, camping store,
barbecue facilities etc. are provided. Normally a fee is charged for the
service;

(Made the hot showers, guards, staff optional, remove the "standalone"
requirement)


_
2. --> I'd call them "non-commercial" rather than "designated". This should
be easier to understand.


_
4. --> Not sure I'd distinguish them from 1, what are the reasons to make
this a new category?

5+6 --> new main tag (see also below)


>
> I don't have a strong opinion about 6. In the earlier discussion people
> felt it is important that is is mapped in some way.
>


Yes, I don't object to mapping this at all, I object that these should be
"tourism=camp_site", but I admit I am not sure what actually is there, I
just interpreted the description in the wiki. If these are relatively
small, delimited areas with any kind of service or presence on the ground,
the tourism=camp_site tag might actually OK. If instead these are bigger
parts of the national park with no stuff like toilets, water, fire place,
shelter, staff, a bench, or whatsoever, then I'd rather tag them the same
as wild camping spots, or with yet another tag.

___

Yet another thing that comes to my mind: what about "permanent camping"
(Dauercamping in German). These are mostly areas inside a standard camping
site that are rent for the whole year and people typically have installed
their own stuff like paving, lamp posts, satellite dishes, sometimes even
fences and hedges. Sometimes the whole site might be reserved to this kind
of "camping" (basically it is a kind of summer cottage, where you bring
your own cottage, used either by people who cannot afford a real summer
cottage or who like the setting of the spot, like a wood aside a lake,
where you wouldn't receive a regular building permission in some countries).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[Jan van Bekkum]

In Africa we have been desperately looking for such places.


>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-24 9:16 GMT+01:00 :

> I object to any mapping, let alone tagging, of “Wild Camp” sites.  By
> mapping these places they will become overused and therefore no
> longer “Wild”.



this is an issue that lies within the responsibility of the individual
mapper, IMHO. Just because OSM shows a possible place to camp does not
necessarily mean that lots of people will go there, especially if the place
is hard to access (e.g. no access by car, long hike to get there). And just
because there is a tag does not mean you have to add every beautiful
"secret" camping spot you know about into OSM.



Cheers,
Martni
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[jonathan]

I object to any mapping, let alone tagging, of “Wild Camp” sites.  By mapping 
these places they will become overused and therefore no longer “Wild”.




If it's in a country where Wild Camping is legal then the area will be abused 
and damaged, if it's in a country where Wild Camping is illegal then it's 
encouraging trespass.




First rule of Wild Camping is you don't talk about Wild Camping, well at least 
don't publish it on the Internet!


If the only definition of such a camp site is that you can put a tent on it 
then every few metres will get mapped.


You can't map the absence of something.


Stick to defining organised campsites, do not try to bring order to  something 
that by it's very nature is disk-organised.






Jonathan

---
http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Jan van Bekkum
Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎24‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎07‎:‎39
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools, Dave Swarthout





Looking at the current definition of tourism=caravan_site it is very close to 
what I had in mind with camp_site=designated.


So the updated proposal would become:


Designated - standard, designated (duplication of tourism=caravan_site), 
trekking in the current proposal; to be refined with attribute tags
Non-designed - as proposed
New main tag tourism=wild_camp_site___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[Jan van Bekkum]

Looking at the current definition of tourism=caravan_site it is very close
to what I had in mind with camp_site=designated.

So the updated proposal would become:

   - Designated - standard, designated (duplication of
   tourism=caravan_site), trekking in the current proposal; to be refined with
   attribute tags
   - Non-designed - as proposed
   - New main tag tourism=wild_camp_site


>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[johnw]

> On Mar 24, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> 
> To me, and I think others agree, designated means official. Any place where 
> people camp in a specially prepared environment has been "designated" at some 
> point, either by the government or a business owner; designated to be a 
> campground. To base an entire category on this term is misleading IMO.


+1

yea, designated means that the area is chosen to be for camping.  “This is a 
campsite” “This area is used for camping”


The problem is that Camps meant for RVs (motorhomes) and camps made for caravan 
(trailers?)  and car camping (where the tent goes up next to the car) are 
separated by the “standard” and “designated” tags.   

Also - “standard” campsites are stand-alone facilities? “Designated” are 
camping facilities inside a larger park? I guess i see where the designated 
comes from now - this area is designated for camping, but it is not obvious. 

But his is causing the confusion, as depending on your experience, you may feel 
that either are “standard” campgrounds or “designated” ones - or both! but the 
tag definitions don’t match the usage. 

In my experience, “standard campgrounds” are quite rare - esp. with “stores” 
(beyond a permit office or toll taker) and “pools” and “laundry service” - that 
sounds like a place where you park an motorhome - not a pitch a tent, but “RV 
camping” is part of camping and trekking - so there needs to be hard 
definitions between them. A place for RVs,  a place for auto camping, a place 
for tent camping, and informal places where it’s not designated but works well, 
 and trekking - a good spot in a vast wilderness area.

Perhaps using “”stand-alone” & “camping-area” or “RV camp / Caravan camp / Auto 
camp / Tent camping / informal / trekking” to split by vehicle 

I’m not sure of how to define it, but standard vs designated is confusing in 
both name and the definitions provided. 

Javbw


Also - as Martin mentioned - how is the fee associated with the grounds change 
their usage?  All the car camping grounds in Japan are private businesses. They 
all charge a fee. They look almost exactly like a state (public) campground 
camp in the US. But they are private.  the fee should just be the standard fee= 
tag___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

[Dave Swarthout]

It's interesting that you brought that up because most fuel stations in the
United States actually use vending machines as well. AFAIK, the only state
in the United States that still requires an attendant to pump your gas is
Oregon. In a way, even though the fuel shops I'm dealing with in Thailand
are much smaller, having only 1 or 2 pumps and no parking pad or other
amenities, the majority of the large name-brand stations in the U.S. could
really use the same tags. They're all automated, accept credit cards, open
24/7, etc. I would of course, add brand, operator, and other descriptive
tags but essentially they are the same thing.

Dave

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Jan van Bekkum 
wrote:

> How does the tagging differ from an unstaffed filling station where you
>> enter your credit card and fill up the tank of your car yourself 24/7 like
>> I seem them all over the place in the Netherlands? In the situation you
>> describe I really prefer shop=*.
>>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jan
>
>>
>> At these places you could fill up your SUV tank and hence they are tagged
>> appropriately. I add:
>>
>> amenity=fuel
>> automated=yes
>> description:en=A vending machine accepting cash in notes and/or coin that
>> dispenses automotive fuel 24/7. Most are poorly marked and offer no other
>> services.
>> fuel:diesel=yes/no
>> fuel:gasohol_91=yes/no
>> fuel:gasohol_95=yes/no
>> fuel:gasoline_91=yes/no
>> fuel:gasoline_95=yes/no
>> name=*
>> opening_hours=24/7
>> payment:cash=yes
>> payment:credit_cards=no
>> source=GPS, geolocated photo
>> vending=fuel
>> vending_machine=yes
>>
>>
>>


-- 
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