sent from a phone
On 24. May 2019, at 01:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> the tag could still be much more simple, e.g.
>> camping=pitch
>
> That looses a lot of information for simplicity.
>
> A compromise?
>
> camp:part=pitch ???
there is no information in this that isn’t ther
Re: offer several tag options, and “the choice that receives the most votes
is approved.”
That’s not how the current approval guideline is set. There needs to be 75%
votes for approval. This is to prevent a tag from being approved with just
51% yes votes.
This is why it can be difficult to reach
Le 23.05.19 à 23:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit :
>> no main tag/value at all ? that avoid any bad tag/value :)
> Well, yes! What are they likely to be confused with?
tagging a camp_pitch without any additional tag 'll
be a polygon with no tag, that's a little light :)
at least one tag is needed
On 22/05/19 18:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 20. May 2019, at 18:19, Markus wrote:
I prefer the camp_site:part=camp_pitch because the :part suffix is
already in use in building:part=* and could become a standard suffix
for parts of other objects, such as named parts of
We cannot use the key “type=*”. This is reserved to define the type of
relation, e.g. “type=multipolygon”.
(FYI, I restarted this proposal process for camp_site=camp_pitch because I
wanted to see if we could render the ref for pitches in the
Openstreetmap-Carto style, but it looks like there will
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 09:31, marc marc wrote:
>
> Le 23.05.19 à 00:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit :
> > then for each site
>
> so no main tag/value at all ? that avoid any bad tag/value :)
>
Well, yes!
> but it is a radical change to have objects that only have subtags
> that exist elsewhere
> tourism=camp_pitch (not because I like this, but because fixing one issue
> (avoid conflit with tourism=camp_site +
> camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe) is better than fixing none of them.
Please do not retag features to an unapproved, undocumented tag.
Mechanical edits are discouraged
sumary :
imho, this thread is trying to solve all issues in one shoot,
and this nearly always fail.
it seems better to cut this into several parts from the simplest to the
most complicated (retag camp_site=* objects that have already a more
suitable tags such as toilets, depreciated one by one th
While “campsite” is confusing for Americans (like myself) and Aussie’s, it
is the correct British English term for what we call a “campground”, and a
(camping) “pitch” is what we call a “campsite” or “tent site”.
Hence the value should have include something like “pitch”.
I suppose this is fair p
On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 14:12, Tod Fitch wrote:
> Please excuse possible Americanisms. What we’d call a “campground” is
> apparently called a “campsite” in British English and somehow turned into
> “camp site” in OSM. And what we’d call an individual place within a
> campground would be “camp site
Am Mi., 22. Mai 2019 um 06:12 Uhr schrieb Tod Fitch :
> it's an argument that makes sense.
> perhaps in this case, should we start by proposing to depreciate
> camp_site=pitch and camp_site=camp_pitch since these are the 2 most
> problematic in the logic of tag linking
>
>
+1
> >
> With respect
sent from a phone
> On 20. May 2019, at 18:19, Markus wrote:
>
> I prefer the camp_site:part=camp_pitch because the :part suffix is
> already in use in building:part=* and could become a standard suffix
> for parts of other objects, such as named parts of forests or lakes,
> numbered grave fie
> On May 20, 2019, at 4:28 PM, marc marc wrote:
>
> Le 21.05.19 à 00:58, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
>> I don’t feel enthusiastic about creating a 4th competing tagging
>> standard to go along with camp_site=pitch, camp_site=camp_pitch
>> and tourism=camp_pitch
>
> it's an argument that makes s
> On May 20, 2019, at 4:28 PM, marc marc wrote:
>
> Le 21.05.19 à 00:58, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
>> I don’t feel enthusiastic about creating a 4th competing tagging
>> standard to go along with camp_site=pitch, camp_site=camp_pitch
>> and tourism=camp_pitch
>
> it's an argument that makes s
Le 21.05.19 à 00:58, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> I don’t feel enthusiastic about creating a 4th competing tagging
> standard to go along with camp_site=pitch, camp_site=camp_pitch
> and tourism=camp_pitch
it's an argument that makes sense.
perhaps in this case, should we start by proposing to
I think “camp_site:part=camp_pitch” is too long.
Also, remember that the existing tag is used for pitches within
campgrounds and caravan sites.
And, the British English term is “campsite”, without a space.
The shortest option with a new key would be “camp=pitch”.
But tourism=camp_pitch has the
Le 20.05.19 à 17:36, Jan S a écrit :
> I find camp_site:part=* somewhat complicated, too. Also, it wouldn't be
> consistent with the use of camp_site=* to describe the type of camping
> site, either.
tourism=camp_site + camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe
and if you cut the site in several
On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 11:41, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> So what's that best tag to try instead?
>
> I think "camp_site:part=*" is rather convoluted, and
> "tourism=camp_pitch" has the benefit of using a well-known key, but
> perhaps there are other suggestions?
I prefer the camp_site:part=camp_
Hi,
I find camp_site:part=* somewhat complicated, too. Also, it wouldn't be
consistent with the use of camp_site=* to describe the type of camping site,
either.
I'd prefer tourism=camp_pitch. This also has the advantage that this key can be
used for isolated camping pitches that are not part o
It appears that the proposal for camp_site=camp_pitch will be rejected
with 12 votes in opposition out of 26 votes total, for
A couple of those who voted in opposition would prefer to use
"tourism=camp_pitch" instead. There were also a couple of people who
suggested "tourism=camp_site:part" and a
Reminder: voting is underway to approve the tag camp_site=camp_pitch
since May 1st so it will continue for the next week till May 14th
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
Please check out the proposal page and add your comments or votes:
https://wiki.openstreetm
I believe the discussion about the tag camp_site=camp_pitch is now
complete here. Also see the talk page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
You can now vote to approve or reject this tag. See:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_
22 matches
Mail list logo
