Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I still think it's easiest for us to approve the fairly popular tag > "camp_site=camp_pitch", which is already supported by some editors, > since the alternatives also have some disadvantages. +1 -- Das Internet ist kein rechtsfreier Raum, das Internet ist aber auch k

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

sent from a phone > On 26. Apr 2019, at 04:08, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Then we would need to retag all of the other "camp_site=camp_pitch" > objects yes, my suggestion would be to retag all* 7000 camp_site=camp_pitch to a pitch tag and keep the camp_site values that refer to camp_sit

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

I'm afraid that using camp_site=camp_pitch as a subtag on tourism=camp_site features, and using "tourism=pitch" for separate tagging would combine the same disadvantages as using camp_site=camp_pitch as an independent feature, plus the disadvantages of adopting a new tag under the tourism key. You

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

sent from a phone > On 23. Apr 2019, at 15:00, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > What do you mean by "camp_pitch as a subtype of camp site"? Are you > proposing something like this: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:camp_pitch no, I was referring to key camp_site=* as

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

A few thoughts re some of the fine details Surface - a grass site with a concrete slab is very common. Should that be grass, concrete or grass;concrete? Fire - it's also quite common for fires to only be allowed off the ground, in braziers / fire pits - fire=off_ground? Power, water, drain - oft

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

I'm made some minor updates to the proposal page in response to comments here and one on the talk page. 1) More than 1 tent allowed: A camp pitch can sometimes allow more than one tent. Often a family can have separate tents for parents and kids, and there are also "group site" which are reserved

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

sent from a phone > On 17. Apr 2019, at 11:34, Sven Geggus wrote: > > Your suggestion would not allow for tagging a site like this: > tourism=camp_site > camp_site=camp_pitch This combination, with the semantics you have in mind, on the same object, would not be possible, on the other hand

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Tobias Wrede wrote: > So why not tourism=camp_pitch within tourism=camp_site by the same logic? Mainly because the other type of tagging is the already established one and there is no good reason for changing this. The fact, that campsites with one pitch are not taggable is something I would co

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Am 17.04.2019 um 13:32 schrieb marc marc: Le 17.04.19 à 11:34, Sven Geggus a écrit : tourism=camp_site camp_site=camp_pitch which would make sense, as single pitch camp-sites_do_ exist. indeed, but a parking with one place, is not mapped as amenity=parking parking=parking_space Actually, yo

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Le 17.04.19 à 11:34, Sven Geggus a écrit : > tourism=camp_site > camp_site=camp_pitch > > which would make sense, as single pitch camp-sites_do_ exist. indeed, but a parking with one place, is not mapped as amenity=parking parking=parking_space ___ Ta

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > +1, btw, there are already 226 of these: > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tourism=camp_pitch I object using a generic key like tourism for something this specific as sub-features of a camp site. Although the existing ones do look like miss-tagged camp_site=c

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

sent from a phone > On 15. Apr 2019, at 13:45, Tobias Wrede wrote: > > tourism=camp_pitch (following tourism=camp_site and tourism=caravan_site) > would be my preferred choice. +1, btw, there are already 226 of these: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tourism=camp_pitch Cheers, Mart

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Hi, I follow Martin's reasoning that camp_site=camp_pitch more looks like it being a specification of camp_site rather than describing a feature within. Following Marc's examples (parking and sports centre) tourism=camp_pitch (following tourism=camp_site and tourism=caravan_site) would be my

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Le 14.04.19 à 21:35, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : >> On 14. Apr 2019, at 18:36, marc marc wrote: >> one of the problems is that each key has its own logic >> a part of a amenity=building is building:part=* >> a part of the amenity=parking is amenity=parking_space >> a part of a leisure=sports_ce

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

sent from a phone > On 14. Apr 2019, at 18:36, marc marc wrote: > > one of the problems is that each key has its own logic > a part of a amenity=building is building:part=* > a part of the amenity=parking is amenity=parking_space > a part of a leisure=sports_centre is leisure=pitch unless it i

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Le 14.04.19 à 17:28, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > Camping pitches could become their own key: one of the problems is that each key has its own logic a part of a amenity=building is building:part=* a part of the amenity=parking is amenity=parking_space a part of a leisure=sports_centre is leisur

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

sent from a phone > On 14. Apr 2019, at 15:46, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > By using a different key, like "camp_site=*", this is more clearly a > "sub-feature" of tourism=camp_site IMHO the tag indicates a subtype of camp site, rather than a feature. I am not opposing a new key, but why “

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Martin, do you have a suggestion for a different key or value for this tag? I mentioned "tourism=camp_pitch" or "amenity=camp_pitch" above, but I think this could cause people to start using this as a stand-alone feature, perhaps for small or remote campsites that have only one pitch. However, I d

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I would not say it is used frequently, we have 100.000 camp sites tagged, > and only 7000 pitches with this tag Given the fact, that about half of them do not have more tags than name (about a quarter lack even name) this ratio is not all that bad. Regards Sven -

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Le 12.04.19 à 13:03, Sven Geggus a écrit : > the already established tags "power_supply" <...> > instead of <...> "camp_pitch:electric" the sad thing is that power_supply is not harmonized with plug=* used for amenity=charching_station. ___ Tagging mailin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

sent from a phone > On 12. Apr 2019, at 15:37, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > I agree that "camp_site=camp_pitch" isn't a perfect tag name, but it's > been used so often that I don't think it's worth changing. I would not say it is used frequently, we have 100.000 camp sites tagged, and onl

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

I agree that "camp_site=camp_pitch" isn't a perfect tag name, but it's been used so often that I don't think it's worth changing. It's already supported with a preset in ID as well. As mentioned in the older version of the proposal, the value is "camp_pitch" to avoid ambiguity with sporting pitche

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I’m fine with mapping individual pitches, but I don’t like the key. > “camp_site=*” sounds like a tag for the subtype of a camp site rather than > a different feature within such a site. Unfortunately its currently used for both. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

sent from a phone > On 10. Apr 2019, at 09:02, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > There is also a tag camp_site=pitch which is undocumented and seems to mean > the same thing, but it is only used 1500 times by 34 mappers, and does not > seem to be growing in usage. I'd recommend approving camp_s

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > It sounds like your sites are used as second homes or vacation homes > in the countryside, so I can see how that could still fit under > tourism=caravan_site. Exactly. However an access=private or access=members might be sufficient as well. Sven -- "Dynamische IP-Numm

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I'm not sure if direction is necessary. How would the direction tag be used? Direction would be like with benches. > If the pitch has a clear rectangular shape it could be mapped as an > area. Shure, if it can be copied from an aerial image but if its a wooden platfo

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

It sounds like your sites are used as second homes or vacation homes in the countryside, so I can see how that could still fit under tourism=caravan_site. A "mobile home park" (or "trailer park") in the USA has trailers or mobile homes used as primary residences by low-income families, in most cas

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I assume these are caravan or motorhome sites? Yep mostly caravans with wheels removed and awnings. > But I think that a place with "permanent_camping=only" is mistagged. Hm basically these are members-only sites without reception but still campsites at least in legal

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Most camping sites on government land in the USA only allow people to stay for 2 weeks at a time, so it’s not only about the operating season. On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 7:59 PM marc marc wrote: > Le 11.04.19 à 12:00, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > > The tags permanent_camping=yes and permanent_campi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Le 11.04.19 à 12:00, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > The tags permanent_camping=yes and permanent_camping=no are a good idea. opening_hours=* or seasonal=* doesn't fit the need ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

On 4/11/19, Sven Geggus wrote: > At least here in Germany most campsites have different pitches for short > term or long term campers. > > While the former ones usually stay for a few days or weeks only, the latter > ones are more or less permanent residents which pay on a seasonal base > rather t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Hi Sven, > Any reason for using a "camp_pitch:" prefix/namespace instead of generic > tagging? I believe you are commenting on the "Key:camp_pitch" proposal, which I posted about one day after the Camp_site=camp_pitch proposal. It's easy to get them mixed up. I did it just this morning myself! >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Hello again, forgot another one. At least here in Germany most campsites have different pitches for short term or long term campers. While the former ones usually stay for a few days or weeks only, the latter ones are more or less permanent residents which pay on a seasonal base rather than a da

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Please comment here or on the proposal discussion page: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch Looks good, by and large :) Any reason for using a "camp_pitch:" prefix/namespace instead of generic tagging? A surface is just a surfa

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Tod, I have already updated the Key:camp_site page with a longer description of this tag, camp_site=camp_pitch tag, because it is the most common value of camp_site=*. The reasons for the proposal instead of just making a wiki page: 1) To clarify that camp_site=pitch (1500 uses) should be changed

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

> On Apr 10, 2019, at 12:02 AM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > I've restarted the proposal process for camp_site=camp_pitch > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch > > > This tag has alre

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

I mean tourism=camp_site, sorry for the confusion. On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:51 PM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > The current proposal suggests that this is useful to define individual > sites for tents or caravans within a larger leisure=camp_site area. > > I don’t see

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

The current proposal suggests that this is useful to define individual sites for tents or caravans within a larger leisure=camp_site area. I don’t see much use in double tagging a single backcountry tent site with leisure=camp_site and camp_site=camp_pitch on the same node. Usually an individual

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

It mostly looks good, avoiding the over-namespacing of at least one of the earlier proposals. Should we consider clarifying that isolated sites that support only a single party may/may not be tagged with camp_pitch? I'm comfortable with either: in one interpretation, a camp_pitch is simply a plac

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 09:05, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > I've restarted the proposal process for camp_site=camp_pitch > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch Looks good, thank you! Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

I've restarted the proposal process for camp_site=camp_pitch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch This tag has already been used over 6800 times by over 380 mappers and is pretty well defined by the old proposal page from 2015 as an individual tent or caravan spot