Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
pmailkeey . wrote on 2015-05-06 23:13: On 6 May 2015 at 20:40, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: if they're static I'd probably tag them like other huts you can rent for vacation. As in 'alpine_hut' ? No, an alpine_hut is more like a hostel in a remote location, it is managed by staff and you would book just a place to sleep in the hut, not the full building. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On 06/05/2015 03:54, David Bannon wrote: Anyway, the issue is, perhaps confusion in some minds about =camp_site and =caravan_site. Most (but not all) camp_sites will also take caravans and RV's. But Tourism=caravan_site is for the caravan ONLY type of place. Here (in the UK) I'd differentiate such places locally as to whether they appear to be mostly for tents or caravans (there tend to be fewer motorhomes - what the Americans call RVs - over here than caravans). Another differentiator might be the organisation that the site is part of. If it's The Caravan Club it's more likely to be mostly for caravans than tents. However there seems to be more overlap between camping and caravanning organisations and sites now than there used to be, so in some cases either tag could apply equally. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Wed May 6 08:23:34 2015 GMT+0100, SomeoneElse wrote: On 06/05/2015 03:54, David Bannon wrote: Anyway, the issue is, perhaps confusion in some minds about =camp_site and =caravan_site. Most (but not all) camp_sites will also take caravans and RV's. But Tourism=caravan_site is for the caravan ONLY type of place. Here (in the UK) I'd differentiate such places locally as to whether they appear to be mostly for tents or caravans (there tend to be fewer motorhomes - what the Americans call RVs - over here than caravans). Another differentiator might be the organisation that the site is part of. If it's The Caravan Club it's more likely to be mostly for caravans than tents. However there seems to be more overlap between camping and caravanning organisations and sites now than there used to be, so in some cases either tag could apply equally. +1 One of the biggest issues I see is that the mapper has to choose between tourism=caravan_site and tourism=campsite, when the vast majority of commercial sites cater for both. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
2015-05-06 12:41 GMT+02:00 p...@trigpoint.me.uk: One of the biggest issues I see is that the mapper has to choose between tourism=caravan_site and tourism=campsite, when the vast majority of commercial sites cater for both. this is a non-issue, simply tag everything as tourism=camp_site and eventually add caravan=yes/no, and use tourism=caravan_site for caravan-only sites. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
There are several RV based camps in the mountains of San Diego that are large camps with amenities, stores, fishing pond, and other things. Yes, there is tent camping, but the major focus is the people staying (longer than a day) in their RV and there is absolutely nothing whatsoever around them - they are places where city people can park for a weekend or so. The Morelia almost exactly like a U.S. Forestry park , but private and more vehicle centric. I believe it's a chain thousand trails if I remember correctly - so there is much more to RV camping some places than just an asphalt lot and a pit toilet. Between us all talking here, we span continents, experiences, and have seen different ways camps are organized -the flexibility with the proposed system seems good enough to adapt to them all. Javbw On May 6, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:17 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: I haven’t been in a RV/caravan only type campground There are some like that, maybe a concrete or tarmac base so tent pages a problem, maybe operator/owner just wants self contained campers. I'd suggest for this purpose we treat them as the same, #define caravan_site = camp_site. There are other tags to tell the difference. The amenity=caravan_site was indeed invented for what amounts to a parking lot for overnight use by RV's. These are just a parking lot, and perhaps toilets/dump station. No lake. No trees. No recreation. Just parking for people exploring a nearby town, or en-route elsewhere. That's different from a liesure=camp_site that happens to allow RV's. ___ 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 of pitches within a campsite
On 6 May 2015 at 20:40, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 06.05.2015 um 19:19 schrieb pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com: I know a few local tourism sites where the tourist brings only themselves and rents a static caravan. How should they be tagged ? if they're static I'd probably tag them like other huts you can rent for vacation. As in 'alpine_hut' ? -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On 6 May 2015 at 11:46, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-05-06 12:41 GMT+02:00 p...@trigpoint.me.uk: One of the biggest issues I see is that the mapper has to choose between tourism=caravan_site and tourism=campsite, when the vast majority of commercial sites cater for both. this is a non-issue, simply tag everything as tourism=camp_site and eventually add caravan=yes/no, and use tourism=caravan_site for caravan-only sites. -1 That's '-ist' - we should aim for something equal such as: Tourism=site caravan=yes tents=yes static=yes RV=yes [=motorhome] swimming_pool=yes [etc. inc. other facility=*] I know a few local tourism sites where the tourist brings only themselves and rents a static caravan. How should they be tagged ? The main tag should not favour type at all but type tags should be added as necessary in whatever combination is appropriate -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Am 06.05.2015 um 19:19 schrieb pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com: I know a few local tourism sites where the tourist brings only themselves and rents a static caravan. How should they be tagged ? if they're static I'd probably tag them like other huts you can rent for vacation. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
I am using K-9, an open-source Android app. On May 5, 2015 6:35:40 PM CDT, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 18:22 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: It has been many years since I last went tent-camping, but my experience of campgrounds in the US national park system was numbered poles marking each campsite, a grassy area for pitching a tent, and a charcoal grill mounted on a steel pole. You weren't allowed to cut brush or to have a fire on the ground, only one in the charcoal grill, as a precaution against wildfires. There was a wooden outhouse (pit toilet) shared by multiple campsites. Similar here in some Australian National Parks but also have more Caravan Park like ones and some National Parks where you can camp where you find a bit of clear ground. We need to cover the lot. P.S. Hey John, your emails arrive with each paragraph one long line requiring scrolling miles to the right to read. What email client do you use ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 18:22 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: It has been many years since I last went tent-camping, but my experience of campgrounds in the US national park system was numbered poles marking each campsite, a grassy area for pitching a tent, and a charcoal grill mounted on a steel pole. You weren't allowed to cut brush or to have a fire on the ground, only one in the charcoal grill, as a precaution against wildfires. There was a wooden outhouse (pit toilet) shared by multiple campsites. Similar here in some Australian National Parks but also have more Caravan Park like ones and some National Parks where you can camp where you find a bit of clear ground. We need to cover the lot. P.S. Hey John, your emails arrive with each paragraph one long line requiring scrolling miles to the right to read. What email client do you use ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
It has been many years since I last went tent-camping, but my experience of campgrounds in the US national park system was numbered poles marking each campsite, a grassy area for pitching a tent, and a charcoal grill mounted on a steel pole. You weren't allowed to cut brush or to have a fire on the ground, only one in the charcoal grill, as a precaution against wildfires. There was a wooden outhouse (pit toilet) shared by multiple campsites. On May 2, 2015 3:39:47 PM CDT, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: It may be common in some areas to allow pitching tents anywhere within a designated area. But I have mapped a couple of backcountry (backpack) trail camps that have a numbered post at each pitch, so I know that they do exist and we ought to allow for it. In the two cases I can think of at the moment they pitches were fairly spartan with only a cleared area and fire ring for each. Perhaps they exist in my area because of issues with fire danger: They really only want you having a fire or using a camp stove in designated areas. Maybe areas that get more rain don’t need to worry as much about that type of thing. Cheers, Tod On May 2, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: camp sites with tents from my experience often don't number pitches but let you set up your tent anywhere you want (within a certain area) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:17 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: I haven’t been in a RV/caravan only type campground There are some like that, maybe a concrete or tarmac base so tent pages a problem, maybe operator/owner just wants self contained campers. I'd suggest for this purpose we treat them as the same, #define caravan_site = camp_site. There are other tags to tell the difference. The amenity=caravan_site was indeed invented for what amounts to a parking lot for overnight use by RV's. These are just a parking lot, and perhaps toilets/dump station. No lake. No trees. No recreation. Just parking for people exploring a nearby town, or en-route elsewhere. That's different from a liesure=camp_site that happens to allow RV's. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 18:54 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: There are some like that, maybe a concrete or tarmac base so tent The amenity=caravan_site was indeed invented for what amounts to a parking lot for overnight use by RV's. Do you mean tourism=caravan_site (14K uses v. 1 use)? That's different from a liesure=camp_site that happens to allow RV's. Again, leisure=camp_site ?? There are 8 entries for this undocumented combination. Don't you mean tourism=camp_site (~60K uses) ? Anyway, the issue is, perhaps confusion in some minds about =camp_site and =caravan_site. Most (but not all) camp_sites will also take caravans and RV's. But Tourism=caravan_site is for the caravan ONLY type of place. So a site taged tourism=camp_site can use the undocumented caravan=yes (2518 uses) to make it clear. Better, I'd suggest to document it and say yes is the default and caravan=no if unsuited for caravans. Hmm, what about other RVs ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
2015-05-02 22:18 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: this is an urban example of a small and dense one for reference: https://www.bing.com/maps/?q=Chausseestrasse+43+Entwicklungs+GmbH%2C+Charlottenstr.+16%2C+Berlin%2C+Deutschlandcp=45.472599029%7E9.1880998609 sorry, here is the correct link: http://binged.it/1Jl9rPy http://binged.it/1IGbqjo I agree that this is a particular situation (very limited space, very central for a facility like this). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
2015-05-03 2:33 GMT+02:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net: Martin, does that concern also extend to camp_pitch=yes ? yes, you need at least one key or k/v combination that gets the object imported, also with hstore enabled. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On May 1, 2015, at 10:17 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Hmm, lets experiment ... Node tourism = camp_site camp_site = standard name = Happy Jacks Node tourism = camp_site camp_pitch = yes ref = 42 addr:unit = 42 camp_pitch:picnic_table=yes Node What I don't see here is how to associate the pitches with Happy Jacks. I guess the easy solution is to say only map pitches where they will fall into an (tourism=camp_site) area ? Hard solution is a relation ? If you are doing detail mapping of a campground you should replace a tourism=camp_site node with a polygon. So you are mapping pitches within that campground polygon with either nodes or smaller polygons. So a node with both tourism=camp_site and camp_pitch=yes would only make sense if there were one and only one place to pitch a tent (park a caravan) in the campground. (I wish it was tourism=campground which would leave “site” or “camp_site” available for the individual pitches. To my American ears “pitch” is more likely a verb than a noun (“pitch a ball on a playing field” or “pitch a tent at a camp site” but that ship has sailed). I think its sad we cannot put something more useful than yes after camp_pitch= but I know someone saw a problem with my suggestion of camp_pitch=42 ? That makes sense to me too and I may have suggested it at one time but it does get resistance. :) Starting to look like this is firming up anyway, good, we need these solutions. I notice that user N76 says he did a good part of the camp_site=pitch on record and is happy to rename them. We appreciate such a helpful attitude ! (Voting on the camp_site= proposal page). As you may have figured out by now, n76 is my OSM mapping ID. :) Cheers, Tod smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Yes, I knew that already. Just threw my 2 cents (2 pence) into the conversation to stir things up. The English flavour of OSM tags are a constant reminder that while we Americans won independence from England many years ago, we haven't entirely escaped her influence. To us pitch is something you paint on a post to prevent rot. I agree that a scout camp area is a campground. But over here, so too is a camping area like one finds in parks and operating as commercial ventures. Deffo tourism... So there we have it. We'll have to agree to disagree and work on our terminology some more. On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 10:47 AM, pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote: Scouts as example, but any communal campground - Everest base camp, for instance - but deffo not tourism -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ 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] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Scouts as example, but any communal campground - Everest base camp, for instance - but deffo not tourism -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
The use of tourism=camp_site to represent a campgound or camping area will continue to confuse and confound this proposal. If the term camp_site should could be redefined to mean a spot (or pitch) where one can erect a tent or park an RV many of those problems will vanish. If you should become bold enough to try to redefine that tag, I'll support you totally. Cheers, Dave On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: On May 1, 2015, at 10:17 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Hmm, lets experiment ... Node tourism = camp_site camp_site = standard name = Happy Jacks Node tourism = camp_site camp_pitch = yes ref = 42 addr:unit = 42 camp_pitch:picnic_table=yes Node What I don't see here is how to associate the pitches with Happy Jacks. I guess the easy solution is to say only map pitches where they will fall into an (tourism=camp_site) area ? Hard solution is a relation ? If you are doing detail mapping of a campground you should replace a tourism=camp_site node with a polygon. So you are mapping pitches within that campground polygon with either nodes or smaller polygons. So a node with both tourism=camp_site and camp_pitch=yes would only make sense if there were one and only one place to pitch a tent (park a caravan) in the campground. (I wish it was tourism=campground which would leave “site” or “camp_site” available for the individual pitches. To my American ears “pitch” is more likely a verb than a noun (“pitch a ball on a playing field” or “pitch a tent at a camp site” but that ship has sailed). I think its sad we cannot put something more useful than yes after camp_pitch= but I know someone saw a problem with my suggestion of camp_pitch=42 ? That makes sense to me too and I may have suggested it at one time but it does get resistance. :) Starting to look like this is firming up anyway, good, we need these solutions. I notice that user N76 says he did a good part of the camp_site=pitch on record and is happy to rename them. We appreciate such a helpful attitude ! (Voting on the camp_site= proposal page). As you may have figured out by now, n76 is my OSM mapping ID. :) Cheers, Tod ___ 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] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On 2 May 2015 at 15:09, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: The use of tourism=camp_site to represent a campgound or camping area will continue to confuse and confound this proposal. UK - tourism = caravan_site - OK fully understood. tourism= camp_site - OK fully understood - tents instead of caravans, motorhomes or RVs. To me, a CAMPGROUND is an area the scouts would use and is not tourism. Big fire in the middle, communality tents surrounding this central location - and no pitches. Also, no (pitch) services of any kind - although there would likely be some nearby. -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
It may be common in some areas to allow pitching tents anywhere within a designated area. But I have mapped a couple of backcountry (backpack) trail camps that have a numbered post at each pitch, so I know that they do exist and we ought to allow for it. In the two cases I can think of at the moment they pitches were fairly spartan with only a cleared area and fire ring for each. Perhaps they exist in my area because of issues with fire danger: They really only want you having a fire or using a camp stove in designated areas. Maybe areas that get more rain don’t need to worry as much about that type of thing. Cheers, Tod On May 2, 2015, at 1:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: camp sites with tents from my experience often don't number pitches but let you set up your tent anywhere you want (within a certain area) smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Am 02.05.2015 um 02:43 schrieb Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com: I haven’t been in a RV/caravan only type campground but my impression is there is a pretty big overlap between the tagging of individual pitches within the two. this is an urban example of a small and dense one for reference: https://www.bing.com/maps/?q=Chausseestrasse+43+Entwicklungs+GmbH%2C+Charlottenstr.+16%2C+Berlin%2C+Deutschlandcp=45.472599029%7E9.1880998609 camp sites with tents from my experience often don't number pitches but let you set up your tent anywhere you want (within a certain area) cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Am 02.05.2015 um 07:17 schrieb David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net: I think its sad we cannot put something more useful than yes after camp_pitch= but I know someone saw a problem with my suggestion of camp_pitch=42 ? I think this would be an elegant and short method to do it, but it will very likely lead to osm-carto not supporting it (not in the key namespace that gets included in the rendering db and unlikely there will be a dedicated camp_pitch-column in the future). cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 22:22 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: camp_pitch=42 ? I think this would be an elegant and short method to do it, but it will very likely lead to osm-carto not supporting it (not in the key namespace that gets included in the rendering db and unlikely there will be a dedicated camp_pitch-column in the future). Martin, does that concern also extend to camp_pitch=yes ? I have not worked close enough with the rendering DB to get a feel of whats good and bad. I tend to think of the data in an XML-ish form but understand it has to get flatter than that at some stage. Could you elaborate a bit please ? Maybe suggest a better model ? David cheers Martin ___ 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 of pitches within a campsite
On May 1, 2015, at 5:05 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Tod, nice work but I am concerned about the syntax you have chosen for two reasons. 1. Given that it was agreed that the larger site is the camp_site and there are pitch within the camp_site (UK terminology), then camp_site=camp_site_pitch is an oxymoron, as a term it does not make sense. Page is named camp site pitch, to indicate we are not talking about a soccer pitch, etc. The proposed tag uses “camp_pitch”. I guess the page could be renamed to campground pitch but I would expect that if the tagging is agreed to the content would be moved to be in the camp site page of the wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site. (I guess I should look into how one properly can rename a wiki page. . .) 2. There is currently a proposal under voting using camp-site= in a different way. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site This proposal is entirely consistent with the pitch proposal except for the naming issue. Or are you suggesting camp_site_pitch be added to the list of possible values for camp_site= ? :-( I guess there could be a issue on naming. The http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site page as I understand it would cover the entire area of the campground while I am trying to address the individual pitches within. What do you suggest? Now, personally, I did not like using camp_site as meaning the whole camp ground but took the advice that we should use UK terms. I would have preferred camp_ground and set up camp on a camp_site. Bryce raised the issue of usage of camp_site=pitch, that indicates to me that others also think of a camp site as that one caravan structure. But we are, apparently, locked into UK terms. Tod, think you also need to put the proposed tag into context. It should be used only in association with tourism=camp_site or tourism=caravan_site ? I haven’t been in a RV/caravan only type campground but my impression is there is a pretty big overlap between the tagging of individual pitches within the two. I think it would be nice if the detail mapping of the two were the same or at least similar enough that mappers and data consumers could easily deal with both. I’ve suggested camp_site=camp_pitch to indicate the location of the pitch but that would imply it is specific to tourism=camp_site and, as you point out, confusing with the proposed camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe applied to the whole area. Suggestions for this? Perhaps simply camp_pitch=yes to be used in both tourism=camp_site and tourism=caravan_site? Thank you for your comments! Tod smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Hmm, lets experiment ... Node tourism = camp_site camp_site = standard name = Happy Jacks Node tourism = camp_site camp_pitch = yes ref = 42 addr:unit = 42 camp_pitch:picnic_table=yes Node What I don't see here is how to associate the pitches with Happy Jacks. I guess the easy solution is to say only map pitches where they will fall into an (tourism=camp_site) area ? Hard solution is a relation ? The easy solution is indeed the right answer. You draw an area to represent the campsite. The area has the name of the campsite and its address and phone number etc. Inside the area you put nodes for each pitch. Tag the pitch with camp_pitch=yes and the reference number for the pitch in ref=*. This is what geographical databases are for. You can infer that the pitch is in the campsite because the database has tools that let you do that. And when you draw the data, humans can see it too. No relations needed. Best wishes, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 17:43 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote: ... I guess the page could be renamed to campground pitch No need ! Its the camp_site= part that is my problem. (I guess I should look into how one properly can rename a wiki page. . .) Hmm, carefully I suggest. I guess there could be a issue on naming. The http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site page as I understand it would cover the entire area of the campground while I am trying to address the individual pitches within. What do you suggest? Yep, thats my concern. A camp_site (in UK speak, not mine) might be a larger area or possibly just a node marking, eg, the entrance where larger area is unknown. The pitches, again nodes or areas may be within the camp_site area or (yek!) near the camp_site node. I haven’t been in a RV/caravan only type campground There are some like that, maybe a concrete or tarmac base so tent pages a problem, maybe operator/owner just wants self contained campers. I'd suggest for this purpose we treat them as the same, #define caravan_site = camp_site. There are other tags to tell the difference. Suggestions for this? Perhaps simply camp_pitch=yes to be used in both tourism=camp_site and tourism=caravan_site? Hmm, lets experiment ... Node tourism = camp_site camp_site = standard name = Happy Jacks Node tourism = camp_site camp_pitch = yes ref = 42 addr:unit = 42 camp_pitch:picnic_table=yes Node What I don't see here is how to associate the pitches with Happy Jacks. I guess the easy solution is to say only map pitches where they will fall into an (tourism=camp_site) area ? Hard solution is a relation ? I think its sad we cannot put something more useful than yes after camp_pitch= but I know someone saw a problem with my suggestion of camp_pitch=42 ? Starting to look like this is firming up anyway, good, we need these solutions. I notice that user N76 says he did a good part of the camp_site=pitch on record and is happy to rename them. We appreciate such a helpful attitude ! (Voting on the camp_site= proposal page). David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote: +1 on addr:unit or ref over addr:housenumber. I think ref makes more sense than addr:unit on remote/isolated pitches (ie hike-in sites, not drive-in). In addition, I've seen cases where individual pitches are named instead of numbered. It's not mentioned, but to clarify, I'm assuming that would just use name” Sounds like there is a possibility that osm-carto might start showing some information about individual pitches, so maybe we can settle on something. In the U.S. I see circumstances where addr:unit is the best fit: Mobile home parks and commercial campgrounds like KOA and some county and state park campgrounds that have a street address and the sites/spaces/pitches within are numbered much as apartment units are numbered. But I also see circumstances where addr:unit, implying there are other valid address tags, is a bad fit: Most public campgrounds in US Forests, US Parks and, at least in California, state parks don’t have a verifiable street address. And backcountry (hike or walk-in) campsites sometimes have numbered pitches but definitely don’t have a street address. For these I think ref=* would be the best fit. Perhaps this is a case where no one identification standard makes sense: I suggest that pitches be tagged with ref=number/name but that in those cases where a valid street address exists for the entire campground, the pitches also be tagged with addr:unit=number/name. There would be duplicate information but a campground specific renderer could rely on there being a ref=identifier while a more general purpose renderer that is also used for apartments and other commercial building display and navigation would have addr:unit=identifier to work with where it makes sense. On Apr 29, 2015, at 5:51 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Which uses newly invited attributes of water and table. I think it better not to reinvent that wheel, and use instead: camp_site=pitch camp_site:drinking_water=no camp_site:picnic_table=yes Or with a more proper namespace: camp_site=pitch pitch:drinking_water=no pitch:picnic_table=yes The more I think about it, the more I like this example “with a more proper namespace”. Procedurally, how to go forward? Should this be a new proposal page or an edit of the old subsection of the old camp_site extended features proposal? Cheers, Tod smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: Most public campgrounds in US Forests, US Parks and, at least in California, state parks don’t have a verifiable street address. And backcountry (hike or walk-in) campsites sometimes have numbered pitches but definitely don’t have a street address. For these I think ref=* would be the best fit. If osm-carto renders one, but not the other, that will skew the tagging. For USA park camgrounds often there IS a verifiable street address, but it's miles away from the actual campground. Even so: if you tell a router you want to go to Foo Campground, and that's mapped as an area, the router really has all the information it needs to process addr:unit. I see pitch numbers as a good osm-carto feature, as they occur in areas of the map that are uncluttered or even blank. As such they don't have the downsides of rendering things like bicycle tool stands or dog waste bins, which receive objections based on clutter. Keep in mind that some piches are named, just as some apartment complexes or rooms are named. And a pitch could have both a name an a ref. add:unit=Willow Camp camp_site=Willow Camp name=Willow Camp pitch:name=Willow Camp ref=AZ2 add:unit=2 ref=2 camp_site=2 name=2 pitch:name=2 Or with a more proper namespace: * camp_site=pitch* * pitch:drinking_water=no* * pitch:picnic_table=yes* The more I think about it, the more I like this example “with a more proper namespace”. Procedurally, how to go forward? Should this be a new proposal page or an edit of the old subsection of the old camp_site extended features proposal? Or * camp_site=camp_pitch* * camp_pitch:drinking_water=no* * camp_pitch:picnic_table=yes* * name=2* * addr:unit=2* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On 1 May 2015 at 19:29, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: Or with a more proper namespace: * camp_site=pitch* * pitch:drinking_water=no* * pitch:picnic_table=yes* The more I think about it, the more I like this example “with a more proper namespace”. Procedurally, how to go forward? Should this be a new proposal page or an edit of the old subsection of the old camp_site extended features proposal? I prefer the above version and would drop 'drinking_' and 'picnic_' as they don't appear to add anything. Or * camp_site=camp_pitch* * camp_pitch:drinking_water=no* * camp_pitch:picnic_table=yes* * name=2* * addr:unit=2* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property pets* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
I’ve created a proposal page at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch that, I hope, reflects the more recent discussion on this topic. Please feel free to comment on it here, on the discussion page associated with that wiki entry or even go ahead and edit the proposal. Cheers, Tod On May 1, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com mailto:t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: Most public campgrounds in US Forests, US Parks and, at least in California, state parks don’t have a verifiable street address. And backcountry (hike or walk-in) campsites sometimes have numbered pitches but definitely don’t have a street address. For these I think ref=* would be the best fit. If osm-carto renders one, but not the other, that will skew the tagging. For USA park camgrounds often there IS a verifiable street address, but it's miles away from the actual campground. Even so: if you tell a router you want to go to Foo Campground, and that's mapped as an area, the router really has all the information it needs to process addr:unit. I see pitch numbers as a good osm-carto feature, as they occur in areas of the map that are uncluttered or even blank. As such they don't have the downsides of rendering things like bicycle tool stands or dog waste bins, which receive objections based on clutter. Keep in mind that some piches are named, just as some apartment complexes or rooms are named. And a pitch could have both a name an a ref. add:unit=Willow Camp camp_site=Willow Camp name=Willow Camp pitch:name=Willow Camp ref=AZ2 add:unit=2 ref=2 camp_site=2 name=2 pitch:name=2 Or with a more proper namespace: camp_site=pitch pitch:drinking_water=no pitch:picnic_table=yes The more I think about it, the more I like this example “with a more proper namespace”. Procedurally, how to go forward? Should this be a new proposal page or an edit of the old subsection of the old camp_site extended features proposal? Or camp_site=camp_pitch camp_pitch:drinking_water=no camp_pitch:picnic_table=yes name=2 addr:unit=2 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
+1 on addr:unit or ref over addr:housenumber. I think ref makes more sense than addr:unit on remote/isolated pitches (ie hike-in sites, not drive-in). In addition, I've seen cases where individual pitches are named instead of numbered. It's not mentioned, but to clarify, I'm assuming that would just use name On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/04/2015 11:17 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:37 PM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: That sounds like “tagging for the renderer” to me. When rendering lags tagging behavior, there is that temptation. Rendering will always lag behind tagging. If tagging is to be rendered then adding another tag to have it rendered will lead to the original tag being ignored by renders .. Catch 22. Also, it's more likely to be rendered if the tagging is well-defined and sensible. If the tagging is awkwardly trying to fit into a particular rendering, or overly complicated, it's probably not going to be used by mappers long-term. I think detailed renderings of campgrounds sounds like a perfect case for a specialized map, maybe on a new map, or added to one of these: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM-based_services#Biking.2C_Geocaching.2C_Hiking.2C_Sport So I wouldn't sweat whether it's rendered right now or not, someone is going to scratch that itch. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Ok, lets see if we can land this. Existing practice varies: tourism=camp_site + name=pitch number tourism=camp_site + ref=pitch number tourism=camp_site + addr:unit=pitch number tourism=camp_site + addr:housenumber=pitch number camp_site=pitch + name=pitch number camp_site=pitch + ref=pitch number camp_site=pitch + addr:unit=pitch number camp_site=pitch+ addr:housenumber=pitch number camp_site=pitch number tourism=caravan_site + name=pitch number building=cabin + ref=number name=pitch number ref=pitch number There's a lot of activity in the camp_site namespace: camp_site:water (412) camp_site:parking (333) camp_site:fire=ring The least disruptive tagging seems to be; tourism=camp_site (for the site) or tourism=caravan_site camp_site=pitch camp_site:amenity=yes/no addr:unit=pitch number Tagging that avoids the namespace is: tourism=camp_site (for the site) or tourism=caravan_site camp_site=pitch amenity=yes/no (e.g. drinking_water=yes). addr:unit=pitch number If the community is willing to mechanically retag, it could be: tourism=camp_site amenity=yes/no camp_site:pitch=yes amenity=yes/no addr:housenumber=pitch number I chose *addr:housenumber* because that's perfectly set up for routers. If a router can find a camp ground mapped as an area, it should be able to find the number inside. It's also unrealistic at this time to expect osm-carto to render ref addr:unit or other names. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Comments interspersed. . . On Apr 29, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Ok, lets see if we can land this. Existing practice varies: tourism=camp_site + name=pitch number tourism=camp_site + ref=pitch number tourism=camp_site + addr:unit=pitch number tourism=camp_site + addr:housenumber=pitch number camp_site=pitch + name=pitch number camp_site=pitch + ref=pitch number camp_site=pitch + addr:unit=pitch number camp_site=pitch+ addr:housenumber=pitch number camp_site=pitch number tourism=caravan_site + name=pitch number building=cabin + ref=number name=pitch number ref=pitch number You found more variations than I’ve noticed. It seems to be a good summary. There's a lot of activity in the camp_site namespace: camp_site:water (412) camp_site:parking (333) camp_site:fire=ring I suspect that this is because of the suggested tagging at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches The least disruptive tagging seems to be; tourism=camp_site (for the site) or tourism=caravan_site camp_site=pitch camp_site:amenity=yes/no addr:unit=pitch number Which, other than addr:unit=pitch number/name, matches the tagging at the link above. Tagging that avoids the namespace is: tourism=camp_site (for the site) or tourism=caravan_site camp_site=pitch amenity=yes/no (e.g. drinking_water=yes). addr:unit=pitch number Any reason to avoid a namespace? Seems like tagging things like water availability as amenities would show a lot of amenities that are not really available to everyone. That is things like the picnic table, fire ring or fire place and possible water may be dedicated to the people who are occupying the unit/pitch/site. If the community is willing to mechanically retag, it could be: tourism=camp_site amenity=yes/no camp_site:pitch=yes amenity=yes/no addr:housenumber=pitch number Looks like you are strongly in favor of not using a namespace. In the case of individual campsite pitches I think there is a strong case to be made for using a namespace. Maybe not camp_site:*=* as “camp_site” is, unfortunately, established for the overall campground. But there ought to be a way to show that a pitch as a number of amenities that are dedicated to that site and not to others which a namespace can easily do. I chose addr:housenumber because that's perfectly set up for routers. If a router can find a camp ground mapped as an area, it should be able to find the number inside. It's also unrealistic at this time to expect osm-carto to render ref addr:unit or other names. That sounds like “tagging for the renderer” to me. I find it distasteful to reuse part of the addr:* namespace for this but if it must be done then addr:unit is far more appropriate than addr:housenumber. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: I chose addr:housenumber because that's perfectly set up for routers That sounds like “tagging for the renderer” to me. I find it distasteful to reuse part of the addr:* namespace for this but if it must be done then addr:unit is far more appropriate than addr:housenumber. +1 I know there are many camp sites that don't have official housenumbers, and that using :housenumber would allow for easy routing. But there are a lot of camp sites that do have housenumbers. And every single car camping site in Japan (which is a majority of camping sites with numbered pitches) will have a housenumber assigned to the camp-site *land* regardless of street names, because there are no residential street names (they use lot numbers rather than street numbers), and there are no housenumbers that are smaller than lot - so tagging in this way would be fundamentally against address tagging in Japan. You can't make up your own subdivisions. Region, city, village, neighborhood (or division #) - subdivision# - lot# Ex: Gunma Region, Kiryu city, Machi village, 4-12 (subdivision 4, lot #12). You can't just tack on a -23 to show pitch number (4-12-23) because you feel like it. 4-12-23 would then be interpreted as 4 being a large section division inside the village (which is common in Tokyo), subdivision 12 lot 23, which is really far away from 4-12. Even if the routing still worked (as only 23 is on the pitch), if it was rendered, then people visually navigating would assume that that is lot 23 - not the address to the campground! And very narrow and tight neighborhoods have very tight lot numbers, so it would be thought that this array of camp pitches is merely an array of small Japanese houses - not a campground. I have seen neighborhoods with houses smaller than US camp pitches. Apartments, units, buildings, suites, and other such informal address numbers are not part of the housenumber system. Even in other countries, where the housenumber would be a tag on the area for the campground, why would there be additional housenumbers inside a single address!? Addr:unit=* is the best fit for what an individual pitch # is inside an individual campground, after that, ref=* Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Apr 29, 2015, at 4:15 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Several months ago we were advised that a camp_site is the larger site that contains one or (usually) more pitches. Therefore to say that a particular instance of a camp_site is a pitch is just plain silly. Except, perhaps, for the rare case of a one pitch camp site ? The key pitch=value is only used a few times and it appears that most or all of those should have been tagged with leisure=pitch, sport=value. So I guess that individual sites/pitches within a campground could use a namespace based on pitch. However I suspect that could become confusing to people more accustomed to the sport use of the word. Perhaps “camp_pitch” could be used to avoid confusion. The suggestions at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches could then be something like: camp_pitch:type=tent;caravan;motorhome — The things we can put on this pitch. camp_pitch:parking=yes/no - You can park next to your tent. camp_pitch:table=yes/no - There is a table for exclusive use of the pitch occupants. camp_pitch:fire=ring/stove - There is a fireplace or fire ring for exclusive use of pitch occupants. camp_pitch:electric=yes/no - There is an electrical hookup for this pitch. camp_pitch:water=yes/no - There is a water tap for this pitch. etc. camp_pitch=yes Seems a bit lame for identifying the pitch itself, so you could actually the pitch number or name under that key instead of using the addr:unit tag, so camp_pitch=identifier could be used instead of addr:unit=identifier or ref=identifier. If people are really worried about routing to a specific pitch in a campground and believe that addr:unit might be more acceptable to the people doing geocoding, then camp_pitch=yes, addr:unit=identifier. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: Any reason to avoid a namespace? Seems like tagging things like water availability as amenities would show a lot of amenities that are not really available to everyone. That is things like the picnic table, fire ring or fire place and possible water may be dedicated to the people who are occupying the unit/pitch/site. The namespace tags duplicates what can already be done. This is perfectly valid: * camp_site=pitch* * drinking_water=no* * picnic_table=yes* Indicates the individual pitch has a dedicated table but no dedicated water. The current namespace tagging uses: * camp_site=pitch* * camp_site:water=no* * camp_site:table=yes* Which uses newly invited attributes of water and table. I think it better not to reinvent that wheel, and use instead: * camp_site=pitch* * camp_site:drinking_water=no* * camp_site:picnic_table=yes* Or with a more proper namespace: * camp_site=pitch* * pitch:drinking_water=no* * pitch:picnic_table=yes* But bear in mind pretty soon you'll hear from additional voices wishing to consolidate tagging, with the opposite opinion. drinking_water is drinking water after all, and pretty soon you'll want *caravan_site:drinking_water*, *areoway:drinking_water* or *waterway:drinking_water*. The use of the *addr* namespace for the pitch number is for routing, and due to the slow evolution of osm-carto (which makes anything else unlikely to be rendered in the near future). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:37 PM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: That sounds like “tagging for the renderer” to me. When rendering lags tagging behavior, there is that temptation. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On 30/04/2015 11:17 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:37 PM, John Willis jo...@mac.com mailto:jo...@mac.com wrote: That sounds like “tagging for the renderer” to me. When rendering lags tagging behavior, there is that temptation. Rendering will always lag behind tagging. If tagging is to be rendered then adding another tag to have it rendered will lead to the original tag being ignored by renders .. Catch 22. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Am 24.04.2015 um 22:11 schrieb Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com: If some variation of the tagging described at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches is used the maybe camp_site:identifier=* could be used rather than ref=* or addr:unit=*. camp_site:identifier sounds like a code for campsites, not like pitch numbers. I'd rather prefer something like addr:unit or a tag to say camping pitch! together with a ref tag. cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Has the discussion settled on addr:unit + camp_site=pitch? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
If the individual pitches are part of a campground that has a street address then in makes sense. But many campgrounds run by the US Forest Service and other state and local parks do not have street addresses even if they are located on roads. And there are backcountry campgrounds with numbered pitches where there is no highway so addr:street=* and addr:housenumber=* are impossible to specify. I consider addr:*=* tags as part of an address namespace that should all work together. Using addr:unit=* outside of the context where addr:street=* and addr:housenumber=* cannot always be used seems as bad as using ref=* for the pitch identifier. If some variation of the tagging described at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches is used the maybe camp_site:identifier=* could be used rather than ref=* or addr:unit=*. There has been a comment on this thread that the tagging there could be confusing as tourism=camp_site for the top level would imply that camp_site:*=* tags should be about the whole campground rather than an individual pitch. So I can see objections to creating a camp_site:identifier=* tag. Maybe all the tags in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches should be changed from camp_site:*=* to camp_site:pitch:*=* I haven’t noticed hierarchical name spaces in tag names to that level but don’t know a reason whey they could not be used. I would certainly be clear to any mapper or data consumer that the value being given was specific to a specific pitch in a campground. Cheers, Tod On Apr 24, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Has the discussion settled on addr:unit + camp_site=pitch? smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
seamark uses a highly hierarchical tag scheme, but it limits that project's interoperability with the rest of OSM. --- Realistically: If camp_site:identifier is used it will be a long time before it's ever rendered or routable. That's just reality. addr:housenumber has the advantage of rendering and perhaps routability today. I think that future routing software can be smart enough to work without addr:street. If the router gets you as far as a campground (or other) polygon, and within that polygon are bare addr:unit or addr:housenumber, it should be able to figure out what to do. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Bryce that addr:unit could be an interesting candidate for all these similar situations. Wonder if we would repeat the complete address information on every single object then. Another issue with campsites could be that they will more likely have several addresses (several entrances), and while this also happens for buildings, the units in buildings typically have one street address associated with them, while on a camp site it might be less clear, so a simple addr:unit would probably be best When adding unit numbers in buildings I always include the whole address. Why not do the same for camp grounds? Having the street name could avoid a routing issue if there where more than one campground in the area. Just addr:unit may work, but why not suggest in the wiki to add all elements of addr? -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Some places have individual tent locations but no street address: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/34.80931/-119.17480layers=D On April 22, 2015 7:51:26 AM PDT, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Bryce that addr:unit could be an interesting candidate for all these similar situations. Wonder if we would repeat the complete address information on every single object then. Another issue with campsites could be that they will more likely have several addresses (several entrances), and while this also happens for buildings, the units in buildings typically have one street address associated with them, while on a camp site it might be less clear, so a simple addr:unit would probably be best When adding unit numbers in buildings I always include the whole address. Why not do the same for camp grounds? Having the street name could avoid a routing issue if there where more than one campground in the area. Just addr:unit may work, but why not suggest in the wiki to add all elements of addr? -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Sorry - I was thinking of state and federal campgrounds. I forgot that camping is often done in remote areas that not only don't have an address but no cell signal either. You are correct, without a valid address, addr:unit is the best method. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: Some places have individual tent locations but no street address: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/34.80931/-119.17480layers=D On April 22, 2015 7:51:26 AM PDT, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Bryce that addr:unit could be an interesting candidate for all these similar situations. Wonder if we would repeat the complete address information on every single object then. Another issue with campsites could be that they will more likely have several addresses (several entrances), and while this also happens for buildings, the units in buildings typically have one street address associated with them, while on a camp site it might be less clear, so a simple addr:unit would probably be best When adding unit numbers in buildings I always include the whole address. Why not do the same for camp grounds? Having the street name could avoid a routing issue if there where more than one campground in the area. Just addr:unit may work, but why not suggest in the wiki to add all elements of addr? -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch -- Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Am 22.04.2015 um 00:53 schrieb David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net: Bryce, what does osm-carto do with your example below ? As you noted in another message, addr:housenumber, while wrong, gives some very positive feedback, silly to ignore that fact. I see a similar problem with some retirement villages, market stalls, car parks. I agree with Bryce that addr:unit could be an interesting candidate for all these similar situations. Wonder if we would repeat the complete address information on every single object then. Another issue with campsites could be that they will more likely have several addresses (several entrances), and while this also happens for buildings, the units in buildings typically have one street address associated with them, while on a camp site it might be less clear, so a simple addr:unit would probably be best cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
The rendering has a lot of influence here. For better or worse, those using addr:housenumber are rewarded with a pleasing osm-carto result. --- ref=42 name=42 addr:unit=42 addr:housenumber=42 pitch=42 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Am 21.04.2015 um 07:22 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: I think ref has a different meaning. Imagine you imported a park service database of pitches, each might have a ref different from the pitch number known to the public: IMHO the ref should be the publicly known code and other, external codes should go into a more particular tag (if at all), which would also refer to the dataset / entity that cares for it, eg ref:FOO=* cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: if thats the only thing you're interested in you can also tag ref=42 highway=unclassified (on a node) ;-) gives you even a bold font... The fact that rendering on osm-carto is so far behind tagging *is* an issue. But here I'm more concerned about routing than rendering. What syntax makes the most sense for routing all the way to a pitch? addr:housenumber is pretty clearly wrong. But treating the campsite like a building, and the pitches like apartments, makes a lot of logical sense. And it scales well to how much is known: 0) leisure=camp_site, drinking_water=no(nothing is known about pitches) 1) capacity=100 (we know there are 100 pitches, but not where they are) 2) addr:unit=1-50 addr:interpolation=all (we know pitches 1-50 along this road or area, but not exactly where) 3) addr:interpolation=odd addr:unit=1-49(tagging one side of a road) 4) addr:unit=1 (here's the center or entrance of pitch #1). 5) relation=site addr:unit=1 contains bench/parking/sewer dump/picnic table/gopher hole/tree/blades of grass (micro mapping extraordinaire) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 14:45 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: ... The fact that rendering on osm-carto is so far behind tagging is an issue. Indeed. But treating the campsite like a building, and the pitches like apartments, makes a lot of logical sense. I don't see any theoretical issue with calling a caravan park a building from a routing point of view. Wonder if it might give a misleading result on a rendered map that shows buildings And it scales well to how much is known: Bryce, what does osm-carto do with your example below ? As you noted in another message, addr:housenumber, while wrong, gives some very positive feedback, silly to ignore that fact. I see a similar problem with some retirement villages, market stalls, car parks. David 0) leisure=camp_site, drinking_water=no(nothing is known about pitches) 1) capacity=100 (we know there are 100 pitches, but not where they are) 2) addr:unit=1-50 addr:interpolation=all (we know pitches 1-50 along this road or area, but not exactly where) 3) addr:interpolation=odd addr:unit=1-49(tagging one side of a road) 4) addr:unit=1 (here's the center or entrance of pitch #1). 5) relation=site addr:unit=1 contains bench/parking/sewer dump/picnic table/gopher hole/tree/blades of grass (micro mapping extraordinaire) ___ 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 of pitches within a campsite
Am 21.04.2015 um 19:29 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: The rendering has a lot of influence here. For better or worse, those using addr:housenumber are rewarded with a pleasing osm-carto result. if thats the only thing you're interested in you can also tag ref=42 highway=unclassified (on a node) ;-) gives you even a bold font... cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:13 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-04-20 2:14 GMT+02:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net: Would camp_site:pitch=42 be more appropriate ? I think the number should go into ref, e.g. ref=42 camping:pitch=yes or camp_site:pitch=yes (etc., e.g. permanent, tent, ...) not actually proposed or detailed yet I think ref has a different meaning. Imagine you imported a park service database of pitches, each might have a ref different from the pitch number known to the public: tourism=camp_site operator=Aurthur Dent addr:housenumber=100 addr:street=The Road name=The Answer Campground sanitary_dump_station=yes addr:unit=1 ref=AZQ-1A sanitary_dump_station=no addr:unit=42 ref=AZQ-42A sanitary_dump_station=yes highway=service addr:interpolation=1 adrr:unit=43-101 ref=AD-ROAD-123 Now imagine say The Answer Campground site 42 and getting routed all the way to the pitch. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
2015-04-20 2:14 GMT+02:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net: Would camp_site:pitch=42 be more appropriate ? I think the number should go into ref, e.g. ref=42 camping:pitch=yes or camp_site:pitch=yes (etc., e.g. permanent, tent, ...) not actually proposed or detailed yet Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Sat, 2015-04-18 at 18:10 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote: I’ve been using the tagging suggested at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches so they have camp_site=pitch on them. Tod, there was a fair bit of discussion here in Feb (?) about terms. The consensus then was that a camp site is the larger area containing a number of pitches. This seems acceptable to most people around the world. Personally, I think of camp_site as meaning pitch but that was not the general answer. So, I don't think that camp_site=pitch makes a lot of sense as a tag. Would camp_site:pitch=42 be more appropriate ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Am 19.04.2015 um 03:10 schrieb Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com: they have camp_site=pitch on them. I believe the key is strange, typically in osm when we tag a=b b=c then c is a subtype of b, while here this scheme is used to tag a part of b cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Am 18.04.2015 um 06:31 schrieb Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com: FWIW, on a mountain where I volunteer I mapped the campgrounds with the tagging shown on the proposed extensions page which uses ref=* instead of addr:street or addr:unit. I'd also use ref for the number/code. What do you use to say it's a camping pitch? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Apr 18, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 18.04.2015 um 06:31 schrieb Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com: FWIW, on a mountain where I volunteer I mapped the campgrounds with the tagging shown on the proposed extensions page which uses ref=* instead of addr:street or addr:unit. I'd also use ref for the number/code. What do you use to say it's a camping pitch? Cheers, Martin I’ve been using the tagging suggested at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches so they have camp_site=pitch on them. The campgrounds I tagged first at located at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/34.81435/-119.10098 a copy of the map I made for the local fire department can, for the moment, be found at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19663978/campgrounds.pdf From tag info it looks like over 700 camping pitches have been tagged with camp_site=pitch with a lesser number being tagged with some of the additional information tags like camp_site:table or camp_site:surface Cheers, Tod smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
But there's no (easy) way to define an address connected to an unnamed road. Way numbers are not supported for addr:street, afik. most residential roads are totally unnamed in Japan. Most larger roads have a number (and a name). motorways (outside Tokyo) have only names. What we would call street address numbers they call lot numbers, done in an odd grid arrangement from larger neighborhood blocks, which is very similar to campground numbering - Occasionally site #1 is next to site #23, but when viewed on a map the pattern of the numbering makes logical sense. So following the same labeling system as apartment numbers, building refs on a single campus, or other non-street related ref systems should work for campsites. Javbw ___ 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 of pitches within a campsite
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:50 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: That scheme seems to rely on house number model. Sure looks good. But does it, by implication, indicate there is a (eg) a house number 12 on the unnamed service road ? I'm not into mapping house numbers so don't know if thats important or not. If you entered Pinnacles Campground Site 12 into your OSM powered GPS, would you not be happy if it took you all the way to Site 12? In practice that would also require: addr:housenumber=12 addr:street=[unnamed service road] But there's no (easy) way to define an address connected to an unnamed road. Way numbers are not supported for addr:street, afik. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On April 17, 2015 3:40:41 AM PDT, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote: On 2015-04-17 07:39, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: If you entered Pinnacles Campground Site 12 into your OSM powered GPS, would you not be happy if it took you all the way to Site 12? Yes, but I don't think addr:housenumber is the way to go. In practice that would also require: addr:housenumber=12 addr:street=[unnamed service road] They are not really housenumbers. The campsite as a whole might have an address with housenumber, street etc, but each pitch doesn't. +1 Better to use addr:unit for the number/name/reference of each pitch. As its says on the wiki, addr:unit is for The number, letter, or name of a single unit or flat that exists within a larger complex. I think that addr:unit was discussed for this use a couple of years ago. I don't remember the details and the limited bandwidth and tools at my disposal at the moment are keeping me from doing a search. My first reaction is that addr:unit is part of the address name space and it seems that if the rest of the name space tags are not used in this context maybe it shouldn't be either. Cheers, Tod -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On 2015-04-17 07:39, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: If you entered Pinnacles Campground Site 12 into your OSM powered GPS, would you not be happy if it took you all the way to Site 12? In practice that would also require: addr:housenumber=12 addr:street=[unnamed service road] They are not really housenumbers. The campsite as a whole might have an address with housenumber, street etc, but each pitch doesn't. Better to use addr:unit for the number/name/reference of each pitch. As its says on the wiki, addr:unit is for The number, letter, or name of a single unit or flat that exists within a larger complex. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Please also see at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches Sorry that I can't comment on the area originally linked to but I am currently in the mountains with only a mobile phone and a lousy connection so I am having difficulty seeing the tagging there. Cheers, Tod On April 16, 2015 10:51:22 AM PDT, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: I'm opening discussion on how to best tag individual pitch numbers within a campsite. There are a variety of schemes in use from tourism=caravan_site on each node to campsite=pitch,ref=XXX. This scheme seems to work fairly well: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37815651#map=18/36.49277/-121.14681 But differs from the wiki. (note good rendering, but missing the dump station, and the ranger station (also reception, park HQ, and grocery). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
FWIW, on a mountain where I volunteer I mapped the campgrounds with the tagging shown on the proposed extensions page which uses ref=* instead of addr:street or addr:unit. I have also generated paper maps off that OSM data. Local fire people saw one and were impressed and asked for a copy. Ended up generating a special map for them. They now can easily respond to any specific campsite. None of the campgrounds have a street address. In fact, many other places in that area are referred to by where they are in relation to the campgrounds. Point being showing campsites or routing is a rendering issue not tagging. I know of at least one backcountry campground several miles from any road that has numbered individual pitches. Seems like addr:house number or addr:unit is inappropriate in that context. Cheers, Tod On April 17, 2015 8:36:03 PM PDT, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Apr 17, 2015 1:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:50 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: That scheme seems to rely on house number model. Sure looks good. But does it, by implication, indicate there is a (eg) a house number 12 on the unnamed service road ? I'm not into mapping house numbers so don't know if thats important or not. If you entered Pinnacles Campground Site 12 into your OSM powered GPS, would you not be happy if it took you all the way to Site 12? Yes, I love where your head is at. In practice that would also require: addr:housenumber=12 addr:street=[unnamed service road] This is broken and should use a different tag. addr:unit=12 would be better. Case in point, my address (in a caravan site, I know, breaking no stereotypes about midwest life here...) already has addr:housenumber=801, and could have addr:unit=252 if I got around to it (hard to accurately survey in my trailer park). Based on my home life and previous experience as a field service engineer and postal service contractor, the US concept of addresses for a campground, trailer park, apartment complex, condominium, and office building are identical (with the exception of a few edge cases where vanity addressing or multiple house numbers for the same building or complex are in play). But there's no (easy) way to define an address connected to an unnamed road. Way numbers are not supported for addr:street, afik. I guarantee you that the fire department has some way to sort it out, and it's probably the campground's street address. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
That scheme seems to rely on house number model. Sure looks good. But does it, by implication, indicate there is a (eg) a house number 12 on the unnamed service road ? I'm not into mapping house numbers so don't know if thats important or not. David On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 10:51 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: I'm opening discussion on how to best tag individual pitch numbers within a campsite. There are a variety of schemes in use from tourism=caravan_site on each node to campsite=pitch,ref=XXX. This scheme seems to work fairly well: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37815651#map=18/36.49277/-121.14681 But differs from the wiki. (note good rendering, but missing the dump station, and the ranger station (also reception, park HQ, and grocery). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
