Approaching close of vote on this proposed feature.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site
We currently have -
8 approvals
1 reject
2 abstains
The 'reject' notes some use of camp_site=pitch already and suggests a
conflict. If we accept that, it has implication for how
On 26/04/2015 10:45 AM, David Bannon wrote:
OK, I think we have talked this topic just about to death.
I propose to turn on voting on Tuesday, 28th April. So please, if you
have some further improvements, get in now !
Thanks folks for all your help with this. Its been a great example of
OK folks, everyone has had every chance to tell us what is wrong with
this proposal, its now open for voting. We have talked and talked ! Lets
vote now please !
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site
David
___
Tagging
OK, I think we have talked this topic just about to death.
I propose to turn on voting on Tuesday, 28th April. So please, if you
have some further improvements, get in now !
Thanks folks for all your help with this. Its been a great example of
worrying away at a problem until its as good as it
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 23, 2015, at 8:40 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 15:16 +0900, johnw wrote:
That’s why I thought informal yet legal spots would be good wording
to cover this, and maybe link over to the camp_type proposal here -
because
Jan, are you going to have another try at camp_type= ?
I think the term non-designated was a contributor to it struggling.
Trouble is, the idea you have here is an important one but one its quite
hard to get your head around.
David
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 05:05 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
My
On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 06:47 +0900, John Willis wrote:
I don't want people to map known illegal camp sites or places they just
happened to spend the night and think are nice but are on a farmers private
property just to complete the map, as map the ground truth means mapping
On Apr 23, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
that have not been defined as campground, but that are used as such for
different reasons.
That’s why I thought informal yet legal spots would be good wording to cover
this, and maybe link over to the camp_type
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 15:16 +0900, johnw wrote:
That’s why I thought informal yet legal spots would be good wording
to cover this, and maybe link over to the camp_type proposal here -
because with the wording for basic, the first thing I thought about
was the legality or designation of the
Good point David. Alaska has that same situation. One can camp pretty much
anywhere on public lands. With the exception of parks and native holdings,
Alaska is primarily public land.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:40 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 15:16 +0900,
Seems great !
Javbw
On Apr 24, 2015, at 9:52 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 06:47 +0900, John Willis wrote:
I don't want people to map known illegal camp sites or places they just
happened to spend the night and think are nice but are on a
Dave,
I wasn't intending to have another try at camp_type=*.
We'll leave on our next trip in less than two weeks from now, so I don't
have the time. I also will be not able to complete another voting cycle
until I'll be without decent internet again.
Furthermore I haven't seen better proposals
OK, I think the discussion on camp_site= has settled down and now
concentrates on things that are just outside the current proposal and
probably need to stay there for now. Thoughts, yes, no ?
I have mentioned on the proposal page tagging of individual pitches and
declared that out of scope for
My understanding is that this proposal is about sites that have been
defined as campground. The purpose of the proposal that triggered this
discussion (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_type%3D*) was to
cover places that have not been defined as campground, but that are
I had a question about basic -
I understand it's amenity level (flat spot + access) but the legality bit being
the only qualifier:
Would it just be for places that are somehow signed as for camping(designated),
places where camping is legal and common (informal [yet legally allowed]
existing
People can fudge the common to mean what they want, but without it, in
some places that could mean every single roadside turnout could be marked
as a campground - which would not be so helpful.
which could become a problem in Sweden :-) since it is Legal to put up
your tent almost
Would it not be ok to say (eg) -
tourism=camp_site
camp_site=basic
backcountry=yes
That's exactly what I was proposing. It isn't a tag describing the
amenities of the camp so much as to indicate that it is a certain type of
camp, one not accessible by vehcles. In New Zealand I believe these
Am 21.04.2015 um 00:27 schrieb David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net:
Dave, do you think that the characteristics of 'backcountry' overlap
with the more generic 'basic' ?
isn't this something describing the general context rather than a particular
attribute to a distinct feature? Do
I was doing some mapping in Michigan and noticed that the National Park
Service uses the tag
backcountry=yes
to indicate remote or primitive camping areas. I think it needs to be added
it to the list of related tags in this proposal. There are 1300 of these
tags existing presently. It might also
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 09:02 +1000, Warin wrote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site
My comment. Any reason for the colours?
Honestly, no, I prefer the (eg) map makers determined what suits them
best. Quite happy to swap as you suggest but wonder if the proposal
On 18/04/2015 3:52 PM, David Bannon wrote:
Folks, to revisit a topic that had lots of discussion last month !
I have updated the proposal page for camp_site=[basic; standard;
serviced; delux].
I now avoid the question of how to tag multiple instances of (eg)
amenity on the one node, area.
Folks, to revisit a topic that had lots of discussion last month !
I have updated the proposal page for camp_site=[basic; standard;
serviced; delux].
I now avoid the question of how to tag multiple instances of (eg)
amenity on the one node, area. People seem to have strong but
conflicting views
22 matches
Mail list logo
