[Tagging] proposal - camp_site= Voting ends soon
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 the terms 'camp_site' and 'pitch' are defined (good!). The two abstains suggest its not necessary. While this proposal grew out of a long winded discussion it seems to not be going to make the cut, I see little point in extending the time frame. So, if you have an opinion, please act now. Once this is over, either way, we can get on with documenting taging of pitches (or os that camp_sites ? :-| ) David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site= Voting on the 28th
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 worrying away at a problem until its as good as it can get. Lets see if thats good enough ... I have changed the proposal status to reflect the voting taking place. Gets it listed on the voting page ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] proposal - camp_site= Voting is now open.
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 mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site= Voting on the 28th
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 can get. Lets see if thats good enough ... David On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 10:10 +0900, John Willis wrote: 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 farmers private property just to complete the map, as map the ground truth means mapping basic+non-designated camps if there was no mention of legality. Ok, I have added a section, Legal Camp Sites, to the proposal page. It says legal only. Mappers have responsibility to ensure accurate data where they are mapping ... Please let me know what you think. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
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 with the wording for basic, the first thing I thought about was the legality or designation of the spot, thinking it would influence the camp_site= level - when it fact it is all inside the camp_type proposal. You will have to help me here John, I don't quite see what you are trying to achieve. Here in AU it is, sort of, legal to camp anywhere that is not private property and not declared no camping. I see camp_site= used only where there is some substantial legal basis, (where that is unclear, its camp_type=). * In countries/places where the default is to allow camping, no sign or official endorsement is needed, just lack of a sign saying no camping. * In other countries/places, where camping is not allowed unless its so stated, we'd need to see that statement. So, the term, 'legal' does have a slightly different meaning here depending on where you are. But if we try and define it too tightly, we may well end up excluding some local variation. Not sure thats a good idea. Would it work better if we added a small block that talks about just that, how 'legal' has that slightly different meaning ? That block would be a good place to say camp_type might be a better tag when the legal status is unclear or undefined ? David Basic+non_designated would be a common tag set for small road or track-side camping spots - but often camping at them can be trespassing or not allowed, which varies from country to country. The local variation is in the legalpart I wanted to impress upon people. Some countries have huge areas considered always open for camping. In the U.S. There are no such rules. Even on public land - it might be managed wilderness, a national park or a state park, and all have different uses on where camping is and isn't allowed, and informal camps by the roadside are often trespassing or doing environmental damage that the park rangers try to stop. Camp in marked places only is often noted. There are a lot of illegal informal camp sites in the U.S. They would be informal yet legal in your country. The people using them know they are trespassing or not allowed to be there, but they do so anyways. This is very true in Japan, and if you read blogs about Trekkers or road bikers, they often camp illegally on private property - they act in a nice manner, yet it is illegal to do so. 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 basic+non-designated camps if there was no mention of legality. People mapping in Sweden may not have to worry, but people in Japan would have to be very careful. Javbw. I’m sure this will come up with other taggers as well. I think camp_type=non_designated + camp_site=basic will be used together quite frequently, so reminding people of that is pretty important - it lets voters know why these two proposals go together well. 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
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 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 used as such for different reasons. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
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 basic+non-designated camps if there was no mention of legality. Ok, I have added a section, Legal Camp Sites, to the proposal page. It says legal only. Mappers have responsibility to ensure accurate data where they are mapping ... Please let me know what you think. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
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 proposal here - because with the wording for basic, the first thing I thought about was the legality or designation of the spot, thinking it would influence the camp_site= level - when it fact it is all inside the camp_type proposal. I’m sure this will come up with other taggers as well. I think camp_type=non_designated + camp_site=basic will be used together quite frequently, so reminding people of that is pretty important - it lets voters know why these two proposals go together well. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
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 spot, thinking it would influence the camp_site= level - when it fact it is all inside the camp_type proposal. You will have to help me here John, I don't quite see what you are trying to achieve. Here in AU it is, sort of, legal to camp anywhere that is not private property and not declared no camping. I see camp_site= used only where there is some substantial legal basis, (where that is unclear, its camp_type=). * In countries/places where the default is to allow camping, no sign or official endorsement is needed, just lack of a sign saying no camping. * In other countries/places, where camping is not allowed unless its so stated, we'd need to see that statement. So, the term, 'legal' does have a slightly different meaning here depending on where you are. But if we try and define it too tightly, we may well end up excluding some local variation. Not sure thats a good idea. Would it work better if we added a small block that talks about just that, how 'legal' has that slightly different meaning ? That block would be a good place to say camp_type might be a better tag when the legal status is unclear or undefined ? David I’m sure this will come up with other taggers as well. I think camp_type=non_designated + camp_site=basic will be used together quite frequently, so reminding people of that is pretty important - it lets voters know why these two proposals go together well. 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] proposal - camp_site=
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, 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 spot, thinking it would influence the camp_site= level - when it fact it is all inside the camp_type proposal. You will have to help me here John, I don't quite see what you are trying to achieve. Here in AU it is, sort of, legal to camp anywhere that is not private property and not declared no camping. I see camp_site= used only where there is some substantial legal basis, (where that is unclear, its camp_type=). * In countries/places where the default is to allow camping, no sign or official endorsement is needed, just lack of a sign saying no camping. * In other countries/places, where camping is not allowed unless its so stated, we'd need to see that statement. So, the term, 'legal' does have a slightly different meaning here depending on where you are. But if we try and define it too tightly, we may well end up excluding some local variation. Not sure thats a good idea. Would it work better if we added a small block that talks about just that, how 'legal' has that slightly different meaning ? That block would be a good place to say camp_type might be a better tag when the legal status is unclear or undefined ? David I’m sure this will come up with other taggers as well. I think camp_type=non_designated + camp_site=basic will be used together quite frequently, so reminding people of that is pretty important - it lets voters know why these two proposals go together well. 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 -- 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] proposal - camp_site=
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 farmers private property just to complete the map, as map the ground truth means mapping basic+non-designated camps if there was no mention of legality. Ok, I have added a section, Legal Camp Sites, to the proposal page. It says legal only. Mappers have responsibility to ensure accurate data where they are mapping ... Please let me know what you think. David ___ 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] proposal - camp_site=
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 lately for the used definitions and wording than what is in the proposal now. Camp_type=non_designated is intended to be used under the following conditions: - Camping is legal, either because camping is allowed anywhere except... (like in Sweden) or because the land owner has given explicit permission (from my experience: police stations and mission stations in Africa) - The place has a practical reason to be selected for camping. This can be security or nearby presence of accessible amenities - There are not many similar places in the environment. Places *not* to be mapped: - A place you select along the road to have a spot before it gets dark (any other place will do in a safe country) - A place you select solely for its natural beauty (other places around; don't spoil it by sending everybody there) - A farmer or (African) hamlet that gave you permission to use its land if other farmers/hamlets will likely will do the same or if you don't want to abuse the hospitality of the land owner by directing other people to it I can see camp_site=basic and camp_type=non_designated got together frequently as camp_site=* talks about available facilities and camp_type=* talks about how the place is designated and managed Regards, Jan On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:12 AM John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: 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 farmers private property just to complete the map, as map the ground truth means mapping basic+non-designated camps if there was no mention of legality. Ok, I have added a section, Legal Camp Sites, to the proposal page. It says legal only. Mappers have responsibility to ensure accurate data where they are mapping ... Please let me know what you think. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
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 now. I have added backcountry=yes as a possible tag to be used in association with this new tag If there are no objections or further suggestions, I'll move to voting in a day or so. please see - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site David On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 14:23 +0300, Dave Swarthout wrote: 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 would be called trekking sites. I have no experience with Australia but I'm guessing the term would mean the same thing. On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
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 used as such for different reasons. On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:56 AM Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: 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 everywhere. see [1], look for the paragraph I’ve heard that you can camp wild anywhere in Sweden. Is this true? regards m [1] https://naturetravels.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/wild-camping-in-sweden-and-the-right-of-public-access/ ___ 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] proposal - camp_site=
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 site), or just any place that's legal that the mapper wishes to tag (legal). I assume you mean designated + informal existing, not just anywhere technically legal. I would change the wording to be something like for signed camping areas or informal yet legal spots where camping is common. 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. Otherwise it looks really good. I look forward to voting yes ^_^ Javbw On Apr 23, 2015, at 7:42 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: 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 now. I have added backcountry=yes as a possible tag to be used in association with this new tag If there are no objections or further suggestions, I'll move to voting in a day or so. please see - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site David On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 14:23 +0300, Dave Swarthout wrote: 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 would be called trekking sites. I have no experience with Australia but I'm guessing the term would mean the same thing. On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: ___ 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] proposal - camp_site=
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 everywhere. see [1], look for the paragraph I’ve heard that you can camp wild anywhere in Sweden. Is this true? regards m [1] https://naturetravels.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/wild-camping-in-sweden-and-the-right-of-public-access/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
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 would be called trekking sites. I have no experience with Australia but I'm guessing the term would mean the same thing. On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 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 these have common properties you can't find in different context? If it is the first, I'd rather not use a tag for it as you can get this information from the map itself and there won't be a hard definition for it cheers Martin -- 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] proposal - camp_site=
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 these have common properties you can't find in different context? If it is the first, I'd rather not use a tag for it as you can get this information from the map itself and there won't be a hard definition for it cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
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 need inclusion on the other camp_site page we've been working with. On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:59 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: 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 would be better without any suggested Icons ? I like icons where they describe what they are but here the colours are arbitrary. I'd think the blue is associated with water .. and might be better with 'standard' rather than 'serviced'? Possibly swap those two colours? David ___ 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] proposal - camp_site=
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 would be better without any suggested Icons ? I like icons where they describe what they are but here the colours are arbitrary. I'd think the blue is associated with water .. and might be better with 'standard' rather than 'serviced'? Possibly swap those two colours? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
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. People seem to have strong but conflicting views and frankly, the proposal does not depend on any particular style. Good. The proposal it self has nothing to do with tagging other things in it self. Those concerned should raise their concerns as separate issues/proposals. Please have a look and make (constructive if possible please) comments ! https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site My comment. Any reason for the colours? I'd think the blue is associated with water .. and might be better with 'standard' rather than 'serviced'? Possibly swap those two colours? (you may well ask why I left it on the table so long, well, I have been away, camping, for the last three weeks, I'd call that research !) Should be more of that .. the 'research' that is. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
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 and frankly, the proposal does not depend on any particular style. Please have a look and make (constructive if possible please) comments ! https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site If we don't spot too many problems, I'd suggest voting in a week or so. (you may well ask why I left it on the table so long, well, I have been away, camping, for the last three weeks, I'd call that research !) David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
