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

[Sven Geggus]

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
kein bürgerrechtsfreier Raum. (Wolfgang Wieland Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)

/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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_site types (like basic, 
spontaneous_camp, serviced, standard, deluxe, primitive etc.) as it is more 
consistent with the general system of a=b b=c...
where c is a subtype of a=b

Wrt the number on camping pitches on earth, and to the number of camp sites 
mapped, 7000 seems a minor number.


* if you like, those camp_site=camp_pitch (very few) that describe a single 
pitch camp site could keep the tagging, but it will probably create friction 
with people still using the same tag for individual pitches, so my suggestion 
would be camp_site=single_pitch for these 


Cheers, Martin 



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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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.

Your suggestion would require redefining "camp_site=camp_pitch" to be
a subkey of "tourism=camp_site" even though it is mainly used by
itself to map individual pitches.

Then we would need to retag all of the other "camp_site=camp_pitch"
objects - but not necessarily the ones that are also tagged with
tourism=camp_site. This would be confusing and still would require a
large amount of retagging of features that were used by dozens of
mappers over the past few years.

And if "tourism=camp_pitch" were the new approved tag, it could still
be accidentally used instead of "tourism=camp_site" for individual
features (I almost mixed that up just while typing this).

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.

Joseph

On 4/24/19, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>> On 23. Apr 2019, at 15:00, Joseph Eisenberg 
>> What do you mean by "camp_pitch as a subtype of camp site"? Are you
>> proposing something like this: Proposed_features/Key:camp_pitch
>
> no, I was referring to key camp_site=* as key for subtypes of camp sites.
> “camp_pitch” could be seen as one of the subtypes of camp sites (a site
> consisting of one pitch)

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 key for subtypes of camp sites. 
“camp_pitch” could be seen as one of the subtypes of camp sites (a site 
consisting of one pitch)


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

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 - often provided as a single post shared between 2 or 4
adjacent pitches, with separate power points & taps for each, but with a
common drain for grey water. Would the power, water & drain tags go on the
individual pitches, or on a common node?

Thanks

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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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 for a single party and have a single
reference number, but can hold dozens of people

2) I added comments about the reasons for going with
camp-site=camp_pitch instead of tourism=*

a) - Using the tourism key would make it not possible to tag a
tourism=camp_site and camp_site=camp_pitch on a single node, in the
case of very small campsites that only have one pitch.
b) - More importantly, it is thought that using a standard key like
"tourism" might imply that this is a stand-alone feature; it might be
used instead of tourism=camp_site rather than inside of a
tourism=camp_site area.
c) Most importantly, camp_site=camp_pitch is currently in use and
extensive retagging would be required to change the tag or key.

Martin, I don't understand this comment:
On 4/18/19, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> And you may eventually be able to keep the exact same tagging but with
> different intended semantics (and basically the same meaning for the people
> who use the map): camp_pitch as subtype of camp site, not as a pitch object
> like tourism=camp_pitch

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

Joseph

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 there would not be much need for 
mapping individual pitches if the whole site is just one “pitch” (not sure the 
word pitch applies in this case). 

And you may eventually be able to keep the exact same tagging but with 
different intended semantics (and basically the same meaning for the people who 
use the map): camp_pitch as subtype of camp site, not as a pitch object like 
tourism=camp_pitch

There are also other ways to express similar information. “capacity” is not 
very diffuse yet (3000), but seems suitable to get an idea how many fellow 
campers might be awaiting you, and is universally applicable.

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

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

[Sven Geggus]

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 consider a minor issue.

Sven

-- 
/*
 * Wirzenius wrote this portably, Torvalds fucked it up :-)
 */(taken from /usr/src/linux/lib/vsprintf.c)
/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

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

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

[Tobias Wrede]

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, your example Sven makes perfect sense exactly in the case 
where the camp site consists of one camp pitch. That's the usual 
interpretation of tags following the scheme A=B, B=C, e. g. 
tourism=information + information=board: an information board, 
highway=crossing + crossing=uncontrolled: an uncontrolled crossing, 
tourism=museum + museum=history: a history museum.


So under tourism=camp_site + camp_site=camp_pitch I would expect a (one) 
camp pitch camp site.


On the other hand parts of bigger things are often mapped by repeating 
the main tag, e. g. (copied from Marc):


a part of the amenity=parking is amenity=parking_space
a part of a leisure=sports_centre is leisure=pitch [...]

So why not tourism=camp_pitch within tourism=camp_site by the same logic?

Tobi

 



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

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

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

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

[Sven Geggus]

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=camp_pitch.

Your suggestion would not allow for tagging a site like this:
tourism=camp_site
camp_site=camp_pitch

which would make sense, as single pitch camp-sites _do_ exist.

Very simular beasts are individual plots within allotments and these are
tagged alike camp_site=camp_pitch:
landuse=allotments
allotments=plot

Sven

-- 
"If you don't make lower-resolution mapping data publicly
available, there will be people with their cars and GPS
devices, driving around with their laptops" (Tim Berners-Lee)
/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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

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

[Tobias Wrede]

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 preferred choice. Even more so, as it 
wouldn't look as if a camp_pitch could not be used within a caravan_site.


On the other hand I have used camp_site=camp_pitch before myself and I 
am unsure if retagging these x'000 existing occurrences would make sense.


Tobias


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

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

[marc marc]

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_centre is leisure=pitch unless it is water
>> then it is leisure=swimming_pool
>>
>> new keys deserve to have some consistency.
>> e.g. :part if the part does not have a name in itself

> I don’t follow this, a part of a park is a park:part (bench, tree etc)? A 
> part of a city? 
> This would be ridiculous or ambiguous or arbitrary most of the time, but for 
> buildings it works well, also if the part has its own name.

I was obviously talking about the case where the parts have the same 
characteristics as the whole. an amenity=parking capacity=1 have the 
same characteristic as a parking_space capacity=1.
I wasn't talking about dividing a park into lots of :part
for every tree, every bench, every blade of grass.
a bench is not part of a park, it is an equipment found in some of them.

if you cut a leisure=park in 2 to say that one part has a different tag 
from the other (for example, a part closed at night), it would be a bit 
silly to invent a new term to say "part of a park" or to have to claim 
that there are 2 parks.

there was the same kind of discussion also with the relationships 
grouping several natural=wood and whose relationship is used to put
the tag name

I find also strange it's perfect to have parking_space camping_pitch
and that it would be arbitrary to call it X:part or any other sufixe 
instead of inventing a new one for each value
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 is water 
> then it is leisure=swimming_pool
> 
> new keys deserve to have some consistency.
> e.g. :part if the part does not have a name in itself


I don’t follow this, a part of a park is a park:part (bench, tree etc)? A part 
of a city? This would be ridiculous or ambiguous or arbitrary most of the time, 
but for buildings it works well, also if the part has its own name.

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

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

[marc marc]

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 leisure=pitch unless it is water 
then it is leisure=swimming_pool

new keys deserve to have some consistency.
e.g. :part if the part does not have a name in itself
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 “site”? E.g.
camping=pitch
or
camp=pitch 

There are already types of camping sites tagged with the camp_site key:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/camp_site#values
admittedly fewer than camp_site=camp_pitch

There is also noteworthy usage of 
camp_pitch:type
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/camp_pitch%3Atype

Camping pitches could become their own key:
camp_pitch=motorhome / tent / see taginfo for camp_pitch:type=*

is it camp_pitch or would camping_pitch be better?

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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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 don't think this would be good. Mappers should use
the established tag "tourism=camp_site" to map the outline of the
whole camping area, whether it is for 1 tent or 1000.

By using a different key, like "camp_site=*", this is more clearly a
"sub-feature" of tourism=camp_site

Joseph

On 4/14/19, Sven Geggus  wrote:
> 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
>
> --
> .. this message has been created using an outdated OS (UNIX-like) with an
> outdated mail- or newsreader (text-only) :-P
>
> /me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web
>
> ___
> 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 - Camp_site=camp_pitch

[Sven Geggus]

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

-- 
.. this message has been created using an outdated OS (UNIX-like) with an 
outdated mail- or newsreader (text-only) :-P

/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

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

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

[marc marc]

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 
only 7000 pitches with this tag, and it is probably undisputed that there 
should be more pitches than sites in the world.
I would rather prefer to agree on retagging now than when we have 1 million of 
them.


> It's
> already supported with a preset in ID as well.


sigh

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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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 pitches or fields.

The key "camp_site" was probably used to show that is needs to be a
feature of a tourism-camp_site (or caravan_site).

In this way it is similar to "allotments=plot", which is used to show
an individual garden plot for one family, within a larger area of
landuse=allotments/

If "tourism=camp_pitch" or "amenity=camp_pitch" were used, it might be
confused with a stand-alone campsite.

Joseph

On 4/12/19, Sven Geggus  wrote:
> 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/Key:camp_site
>
> Not particular nice, but not that bad either. Changing this tag to something
> else would need automatic editing of 6941 objects.
>
> As I already said that I object the camp_pitch prefixing for subtags.
>
> Looking at them I also suggest to use the already established tags
> "power_supply" and "fireplace" instead of "camp_pitch:fire" and
> "camp_pitch:electric".
>
> Regards
>
> Sven
>
> --
> Um Kontrolle Ihres Kontos wiederzugewinnen, klicken Sie bitte auf das
> Verbindungsgebrüll. (aus einer Ebay fishing Mail)
>
> /me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web
>
> ___
> 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 - Camp_site=camp_pitch

[Sven Geggus]

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/Key:camp_site

Not particular nice, but not that bad either. Changing this tag to something
else would need automatic editing of 6941 objects.

As I already said that I object the camp_pitch prefixing for subtags.

Looking at them I also suggest to use the already established tags
"power_supply" and "fireplace" instead of "camp_pitch:fire" and
"camp_pitch:electric".

Regards

Sven

-- 
Um Kontrolle Ihres Kontos wiederzugewinnen, klicken Sie bitte auf das
Verbindungsgebrüll. (aus einer Ebay fishing Mail)

/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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_site=camp_pitch 
> instead


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.

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

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

[Sven Geggus]

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-Nummern sind Security-Homöopathie."
(Kristian Köhntopp)

/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

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

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

[Sven Geggus]

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 platform
inside a forest all you can aquire then is width, length and direction.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:direction

Still importatnt to see if its big enough for your tent.

> But many tent pitches do not have clearly verifiable boundaries;
> these should be mapped as nodes.

Right, if they are right on the ground.

I have two examples of the former and the latter from backcountry campsites
in the black forest:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5001823515
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4935721966

Image of wooden Platform:
https://naturparkschwarzwald.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Camp-Erdbeerloch.jpg

Sven

-- 
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes itself,
exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet
that did not commit suicide." (John Quincy Adams)
/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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 cases

On 4/11/19, Sven Geggus  wrote:
> 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 terms.
>
>> There is a tag "building=static_caravan" (based on British English)
>> for  motorhomes / trailers / caravans and mobile homes which are used
>> as permanent residences in one place, year-round.
>
> Which does not fit, as theses caravans+awnings still need to be movable at
> least in theory to stay legal. Theses sites are still somehwat tourism as
> they are usually used like weekend houses.
>
>> We have many "mobile home parks" in the USA which are intended for
>> year-road habitation, and most of the "vehicles" are up on jacks. Many
>> have decks and porches built on. I believe these are mapped as
>> landuse=residential areas, with building=static_caravan for each home.
>
> Hm, might be similar, hard to tell.
>
> Sven
>
> --
> Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden
> (Rosa Luxemburg)
>
> /me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web
>
> ___
> 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 - Camp_site=camp_pitch

[Sven Geggus]

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 terms.

> There is a tag "building=static_caravan" (based on British English)
> for  motorhomes / trailers / caravans and mobile homes which are used
> as permanent residences in one place, year-round.

Which does not fit, as theses caravans+awnings still need to be movable at
least in theory to stay legal. Theses sites are still somehwat tourism as
they are usually used like weekend houses.

> We have many "mobile home parks" in the USA which are intended for
> year-road habitation, and most of the "vehicles" are up on jacks. Many
> have decks and porches built on. I believe these are mapped as
> landuse=residential areas, with building=static_caravan for each home.

Hm, might be similar, hard to tell.

Sven

-- 
Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden
(Rosa Luxemburg)

/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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_camping=no are a good idea.
>
> opening_hours=* or seasonal=* doesn't fit the need ?
> ___
> 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 - Camp_site=camp_pitch

[marc marc]

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.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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 than a daily one.
>
> I already invented a "permanent_camping"="yes","no","only" tagging for
> tourism=camp_site which is rendered in http://opencampingmap.org, but these
> are usually separated pitches on campsites which offer both.

I assume these are caravan or motorhome sites? I'd be surprised if
year-round tent camping were feasible in Germany.

The tags permanent_camping=yes and permanent_camping=no are a good idea.

Perhaps there could also be something like longterm_camping=yes for
pitches that can be used longer than 2 weeks at a time, but not
year-round?

But I think that a place with "permanent_camping=only" is mistagged.
It would be landuse=residential rather than tourism=camp_site or
=caravan_site, no? It's no longer a tourism feature if it's only for
permanent residences.

There is a tag "building=static_caravan" (based on British English)
for  motorhomes / trailers / caravans and mobile homes which are used
as permanent residences in one place, year-round.

We have many "mobile home parks" in the USA which are intended for
year-road habitation, and most of the "vehicles" are up on jacks. Many
have decks and porches built on. I believe these are mapped as
landuse=residential areas, with building=static_caravan for each home.

-Joseph

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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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!

> A surface is just a surface after all and the information, that it is the
> surface of a camp_pitch is already given by the camp_site=camp_pitch
> tagging. So prefixing is redundant at best.
>
> In practice this stuff will only lead to some kind of unificatiopn
> step when processing data. Frankly, I would prefer using generic tags.

I think that's a reasonable point. This namespaced tagging was not my
idea, I'm just reposting it as a new proposal. I agree that just using
keys like surface=* and drinking_water=* would be simpler.

> Looking at the additional tags I would also suggest to add the following for
> nodes:
> * width
> * length
> * direction
>
> Rationale for this is, that at least here in Germany there are wooden
> pitches in some backcountry campsites where this information might be very
> useful.

Sure, this could be suggested on the final wiki page. I can see length
being especially important for caravan and motorhome/RV pitches;
usually you need to check that the site is long enough for the
vehicle.

I'm not sure if direction is necessary. How would the direction tag be used?

If the pitch has a clear rectangular shape it could be mapped as an
area. But many tent pitches do not have clearly verifiable boundaries;
these should be mapped as nodes.

- Joseph

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

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

[Sven Geggus]

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 daily one.

I already invented a "permanent_camping"="yes","no","only" tagging for
tourism=camp_site which is rendered in http://opencampingmap.org, but these
are usually separated pitches on campsites which offer both.

An example for such a map with different kinds of pitches is here:
https://www.st.leoner-see.de/_Resources/Persistent/9edfc4f633cfdde20abd8744cdba220af0564f1d/St.Leoner_See_Plan_03_2019.pdf

Individual pitches are not mapped in OSM on this site:
https://opencampingmap.org/#12/49.2773/8.5546/0/0/bef/way/56323471

Regards

Sven

-- 
"If you don't make lower-resolution mapping data publicly
available, there will be people with their cars and GPS
devices, driving around with their laptops" (Tim Berners-Lee)
/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

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

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

[Sven Geggus]

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 surface after all and the information, that it is the
surface of a camp_pitch is already given by the camp_site=camp_pitch
tagging. So prefixing is redundant at best.

In practice this stuff will only lead to some kind of unificatiopn
step when processing data. Frankly, I would prefer using generic tags.

I already ran into this problem when dealing with website vs.
contact:website where I had to implement a special handling for this stuff.

Looking at the additional tags I would also suggest to add the following for
nodes:
* width
* length
* direction

Rationale for this is, that at least here in Germany there are wooden
pitches in some backcountry campsites where this information might be very
useful.

See http://www.naturpark-eifel.de/de/projekte/detail/Eifel-Trekking-32o/ for
an image of such a beast.

Regards

Sven

-- 
Author of http://opencampingmap.org

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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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 to
camp_site=camp_pitch (7000 uses).
2) To add it to the official Features list
3) Give the community a chance to discuss the change.

All of these will make it much more likely that the tag will be
accepted as a way to render the "ref=*" of camp pitches.

(In the unlikely event that the proposal is rejected, I will document
this as well, but the tag will be documented as "in use", not added to
features, camp_site=pitch will not be listed as a mistake, and the
critical comments will be summarized on the wiki page)

Re: "... removed details on how to tag the amenities associated with
each camp pitch (the suggested camp_pitch:*=* tagging). ... by this
deletion there is no explanation of them anywhere in the wiki."

That's not quite right. These tags are till found on the discussion
page of the proposal
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch),

Don't worry, I intend to make a proposal page for the "camp_pitch:*=*"
tags, but because this is more complicated, I believe it's safer to
make it a separate proposal page. I just didn't have time to do it
yesterday.

Re: "many (most?) backcountry camp sites actually have more than one
area to pitch a tent and many of those actually are developed enough
to have fire rings (fires outside of an official location is highly
frowned upon). So I’d argue that a blanket “we don’t need this for
backcountry camp sites” may be region specific."

I did not intent to imply that this key should not be used for
backcountry camp sites in my earlier comments or in the proposal. Any
campground or campsite with multiple pitches can use this tag, whether
it is highly developed or remote.

Joseph

On 4/11/19, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> I am not sure that a “restart” of discussion of camp_site=pitch on this list
> is required: There are nearly 7000 usages [1] spread pretty much around the
> whole world [2]. This implies to me that what someone ought to do is move
> this old proposal into a description of how it is actually being used. Bike
> shedding it here among the dozen or so people that will argue this forever
> is just a waste of energy.
>
> The edit of the proposal made in the last couple of days removed details on
> how to tag the amenities associated with each camp pitch (the suggested
> camp_pitch:*=* tagging). These have also gained some traction [3] and by
> this deletion there is no explanation of them anywhere in the wiki. Not
> good! I am of a mind to revert that part of your changes just so the many
> uses found around the world have some definition of what they mean and what
> values are documented.
>
> Given the usage trends, I agree that we should deprecate the camp_site=pitch
> (and its associated sub-tagging) and suggest the camp_site=camp_pitch
> tagging instead.
>
>
> If the camp site has only a single pitch then I agree the tagging is over
> kill and maybe some simplifications are in order. But I my part of the world
> many (most?) backcountry camp sites actually have more than one area to
> pitch a tent and many of those actually are developed enough to have fire
> rings (fires outside of an official location is highly frowned upon). So I’d
> argue that a blanket “we don’t need this for backcountry camp sites” may be
> region specific.
>
> I strongly suggest the way forward here is to simply move the old “proposed
> features” for camp_site=camp_pitch, with sub-tagging defined, into the
> regular pages of the wiki that describe tagging actually in use.
>
> [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/camp_site=camp_pitch#overview
> [2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/camp_site=camp_pitch#map
> [3] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=camp_pitch
>
> Cheers,
> Tod

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

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

[Tod Fitch]

> 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 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 within a tourism=camp_site area.
> 
> These features should be mapped as a node (or possibly an area, when this is 
> verifiable) and "ref=*" can be used for the number of the camp pitch. This 
> will be useful for routing and could be rendered like addr:unit (most 
> campsites do not have official unit numbers).
> 
> 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_site=camp_pitch 
> instead
> 
> Please comment here or on the proposal discussion page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch 
> 


I am not sure that a “restart” of discussion of camp_site=pitch on this list is 
required: There are nearly 7000 usages [1] spread pretty much around the whole 
world [2]. This implies to me that what someone ought to do is move this old 
proposal into a description of how it is actually being used. Bike shedding it 
here among the dozen or so people that will argue this forever is just a waste 
of energy.

The edit of the proposal made in the last couple of days removed details on how 
to tag the amenities associated with each camp pitch (the suggested 
camp_pitch:*=* tagging). These have also gained some traction [3] and by this 
deletion there is no explanation of them anywhere in the wiki. Not good! I am 
of a mind to revert that part of your changes just so the many uses found 
around the world have some definition of what they mean and what values are 
documented.

Given the usage trends, I agree that we should deprecate the camp_site=pitch 
(and its associated sub-tagging) and suggest the camp_site=camp_pitch tagging 
instead.


> On Apr 10, 2019, at 6:51 AM, Joseph Eisenberg  
> 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 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 campsite has a name rather than a ref= tag. 
> 
> For backcountry campsites, you can define the type of camp_site by using 
> camp_site=basic (if there is no water or toilet) - see Key:camp_site
> 
> Joseph
> 

If the camp site has only a single pitch then I agree the tagging is over kill 
and maybe some simplifications are in order. But I my part of the world many 
(most?) backcountry camp sites actually have more than one area to pitch a tent 
and many of those actually are developed enough to have fire rings (fires 
outside of an official location is highly frowned upon). So I’d argue that a 
blanket “we don’t need this for backcountry camp sites” may be region specific.

I strongly suggest the way forward here is to simply move the old “proposed 
features” for camp_site=camp_pitch, with sub-tagging defined, into the regular 
pages of the wiki that describe tagging actually in use.


[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/camp_site=camp_pitch#overview
[2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/camp_site=camp_pitch#map
[3] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=camp_pitch

Cheers,
Tod



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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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 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 campsite has a name rather than a ref= tag.
>
> For backcountry campsites, you can define the type of camp_site by using
> camp_site=basic (if there is no water or toilet) - see Key:camp_site
>
> Joseph
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:33 PM Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 place for
>> a single party to camp; in the other a camp_pitch is a single party's
>> site, always within a larger facility.
>>
>> I'm asking because most of the camping places that I visit are either
>> backcountry campsites, where a site is luxurious if it has a thunder
>> box http://tinyurl.com/y3clyav3 and a fire pit, or else roadside
>> campsites that are little more than a place to park a small caravan or
>> pitch a tent, and may have a proper outhouse or even a well with a
>> pitcher pump. They aren't parts of a larger campground.
>>
>> In the case of one long string of roadside sites (spaced perhaps 400 m
>> apart), the area near the road
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6370357 is legally a
>> 'campground' and is tagged as such. The laws governing usage are
>> different from those that apply in the wilderness areas beyond. The
>> roadside spots continue to be maintained because of a long-standing
>> customary use by hunters, trappers and fishermen to access those
>> wilderness areas. (The other campgrounds that you see in the vicinity
>> are 'proper' camp_sites with communal flush toilets and showers,
>> offices, swimming beaches and so on. There are other strings of
>> roadside campsites that are not so grouped. For instance, there are a
>> dozen or so sites on Gould Road east of the end of the 'campground'
>> that are legally 'wild forest'.
>>
>> Is there recommended tagging for sites without land access?  At some
>> point I may start placing individual sites to get the ref=* tagging,
>> and there are a whole lot of pitches in that part of the world that
>> may be numbered, reserved, paid-for sites, but that you need a canoe
>> to get to, either because they're on islands, or because they're on
>> trail-less lakeshore (and I at least don't want to push through the
>> mud and vegetation to get to them overland).
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 3:05 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 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 within a tourism=camp_site area.
>> >
>> > These features should be mapped as a node (or possibly an area, when
>> this is verifiable) and "ref=*" can be used for the number of the camp
>> pitch. This will be useful for routing and could be rendered like addr:unit
>> (most campsites do not have official unit numbers).
>> >
>> > 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_site=camp_pitch instead
>> >
>> > Please comment here or on the proposal discussion page:
>> >
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
>> > ___
>> > 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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 campsite has a name rather than a ref= tag.

For backcountry campsites, you can define the type of camp_site by using
camp_site=basic (if there is no water or toilet) - see Key:camp_site

Joseph

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:33 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> 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 place for
> a single party to camp; in the other a camp_pitch is a single party's
> site, always within a larger facility.
>
> I'm asking because most of the camping places that I visit are either
> backcountry campsites, where a site is luxurious if it has a thunder
> box http://tinyurl.com/y3clyav3 and a fire pit, or else roadside
> campsites that are little more than a place to park a small caravan or
> pitch a tent, and may have a proper outhouse or even a well with a
> pitcher pump. They aren't parts of a larger campground.
>
> In the case of one long string of roadside sites (spaced perhaps 400 m
> apart), the area near the road
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6370357 is legally a
> 'campground' and is tagged as such. The laws governing usage are
> different from those that apply in the wilderness areas beyond. The
> roadside spots continue to be maintained because of a long-standing
> customary use by hunters, trappers and fishermen to access those
> wilderness areas. (The other campgrounds that you see in the vicinity
> are 'proper' camp_sites with communal flush toilets and showers,
> offices, swimming beaches and so on. There are other strings of
> roadside campsites that are not so grouped. For instance, there are a
> dozen or so sites on Gould Road east of the end of the 'campground'
> that are legally 'wild forest'.
>
> Is there recommended tagging for sites without land access?  At some
> point I may start placing individual sites to get the ref=* tagging,
> and there are a whole lot of pitches in that part of the world that
> may be numbered, reserved, paid-for sites, but that you need a canoe
> to get to, either because they're on islands, or because they're on
> trail-less lakeshore (and I at least don't want to push through the
> mud and vegetation to get to them overland).
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 3:05 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 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 within a tourism=camp_site area.
> >
> > These features should be mapped as a node (or possibly an area, when
> this is verifiable) and "ref=*" can be used for the number of the camp
> pitch. This will be useful for routing and could be rendered like addr:unit
> (most campsites do not have official unit numbers).
> >
> > 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_site=camp_pitch instead
> >
> > Please comment here or on the proposal discussion page:
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
> > ___
> > 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

[Kevin Kenny]

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 place for
a single party to camp; in the other a camp_pitch is a single party's
site, always within a larger facility.

I'm asking because most of the camping places that I visit are either
backcountry campsites, where a site is luxurious if it has a thunder
box http://tinyurl.com/y3clyav3 and a fire pit, or else roadside
campsites that are little more than a place to park a small caravan or
pitch a tent, and may have a proper outhouse or even a well with a
pitcher pump. They aren't parts of a larger campground.

In the case of one long string of roadside sites (spaced perhaps 400 m
apart), the area near the road
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6370357 is legally a
'campground' and is tagged as such. The laws governing usage are
different from those that apply in the wilderness areas beyond. The
roadside spots continue to be maintained because of a long-standing
customary use by hunters, trappers and fishermen to access those
wilderness areas. (The other campgrounds that you see in the vicinity
are 'proper' camp_sites with communal flush toilets and showers,
offices, swimming beaches and so on. There are other strings of
roadside campsites that are not so grouped. For instance, there are a
dozen or so sites on Gould Road east of the end of the 'campground'
that are legally 'wild forest'.

Is there recommended tagging for sites without land access?  At some
point I may start placing individual sites to get the ref=* tagging,
and there are a whole lot of pitches in that part of the world that
may be numbered, reserved, paid-for sites, but that you need a canoe
to get to, either because they're on islands, or because they're on
trail-less lakeshore (and I at least don't want to push through the
mud and vegetation to get to them overland).

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 3:05 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 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 within a tourism=camp_site area.
>
> These features should be mapped as a node (or possibly an area, when this is 
> verifiable) and "ref=*" can be used for the number of the camp pitch. This 
> will be useful for routing and could be rendered like addr:unit (most 
> campsites do not have official unit numbers).
>
> 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_site=camp_pitch 
> instead
>
> Please comment here or on the proposal discussion page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
> ___
> 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 - Camp_site=camp_pitch

[Markus]

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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 within a tourism=camp_site area.

These features should be mapped as a node (or possibly an area, when this
is verifiable) and "ref=*" can be used for the number of the camp pitch.
This will be useful for routing and could be rendered like addr:unit (most
campsites do not have official unit numbers).

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_site=camp_pitch
instead

Please comment here or on the proposal discussion page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging