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] 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] 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] 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] 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
