Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

Amenity goes back to the term used by estate agents when describing a property as being close to the amenities. The level of which will vary, but in a village you expect the four Ps. Pub, Post Office, Primary School and Parish Church. Living in a small town I would add doctors, cafes,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

Am Mi., 18. Sept. 2019 um 10:58 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole : > Then nearly all amenities and leisure objects would be shops, consider > for example amentity=toilets Which, as you likely know :-), exist both > in free and paid versions. Providing access to a facility for use, > regardless if free or

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

Or if there are steps into the river or lake, or a ladder, that could be marked. On Mon, 9 Sep 2019, 03:21 Joseph Eisenberg, wrote: > Creeks and rivers are tricky, since it's hard to confirm whether or > not they are good for swimming. Tagging sport=swimming on certain > nodes of a river or

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

Am 18.09.2019 um 09:37 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > sent from a phone > >> On 18. Sep 2019, at 09:22, Simon Poole wrote: >> >> My point was more that you should ignore the shop classification and >> assume that that this is simply facility that in some form provides >> access to clothes

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

sent from a phone > On 18. Sep 2019, at 09:22, Simon Poole wrote: > > My point was more that you should ignore the shop classification and > assume that that this is simply facility that in some form provides > access to clothes washing machines and space, because even a completely > normal

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

Am 17.09.2019 um 08:29 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg: > I didn't think shop=laundry would work for a laundry room at a campsite. > My point was more that you should ignore the shop classification and assume that that this is simply facility that in some form provides access to clothes washing machines

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

On 18/09/19 09:02, Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 23:46, brad > wrote: I think it's valid tag for a campsite, I think it can be, on larger camp sites, which have several washing machines in a dedicated building.  It's not much different than

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

On 18/09/19 09:08, marc marc wrote: Le 18.09.19 à 01:02, Paul Allen a écrit : Those machines are generally available for use only by people staying on the site (they could accept anyone, but usually do not).  How are you going to tag that?  We don't have access=campers access=private

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 00:09, marc marc wrote: > Le 18.09.19 à 01:02, Paul Allen a écrit : > > Those machines are generally available for use only by people > > staying on the site (they could accept anyone, but usually do not). How > > are you going > > to tag that? We don't have

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

Le 18.09.19 à 01:02, Paul Allen a écrit : > Those machines are generally available for use only by people > staying on the site (they could accept anyone, but usually do not).  How > are you going > to tag that?  We don't have access=campers access=private private=campers

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 23:46, brad wrote: > I think it's valid tag for a campsite, I think it can be, on larger camp sites, which have several washing machines in a dedicated building. It's not much different than any other self service coin operated laundry. > Yes and no. Many camp sites

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

I think it's valid tag for a campsite,   It's not much different than any other self service coin operated laundry. On 9/17/19 4:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 17. Sep 2019, at 08:29, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: I didn't think shop=laundry would work for a laundry room

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

sent from a phone > On 17. Sep 2019, at 08:29, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > I didn't think shop=laundry would work for a laundry room at a campsite. I agree this seems strange, shop=laundry is about a laundry business, while a camping is about a camping business and the “laundry service”

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

On 17/09/19 16:29, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: I didn't think shop=laundry would work for a laundry room at a campsite. But I suppose washing_machine=yes/no + dryer=yes/no is good enough for 99% of cases.a Also features at hotels/guest-houses etc... no reason to limit them to camp sites.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

I didn't think shop=laundry would work for a laundry room at a campsite. But I suppose washing_machine=yes/no + dryer=yes/no is good enough for 99% of cases. On 9/17/19, Simon Poole wrote: > Do you actually believe that it is a good idea to have people map > individual washing machines  and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

Do you actually believe that it is a good idea to have people map individual washing machines  and dryers (the tag exists for washing_machine but is super low use)? I can see the need to map laundries (and that might have slightly wider application than just camp sites), so why not shop=laundry

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

The voting period for Campsite_properties will be open for the rest of this week and until 2019-9-23 (September 23rd). Currently there are 3 people in favor of approval and 1 comment without a vote. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Campsite_properties - Deprecates booking=*

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

Have not stayed at a campsite that charges for showers for sometime now but many require a token, rather than coins. Phil (trigpoint) On Tuesday, 10 September 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > >shower:fee=yes > > I believe "yes/no" is better for fee, since the value may change frequently. > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

>shower:fee=yes I believe "yes/no" is better for fee, since the value may change frequently. If you are mapping detailed information about the showers, it would be best to map these as a separate node with amenity=shower, if you know it's correct location. In that case you could use

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 11:22, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Another question :-) > & again! There are powered pitches available, but there are only 30 of them (mixture of tent & caravan), while there are virtually unlimited numbers of unpowered pitches. capacity:powered / power_supply=30 ?

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 09:53, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Several new and existing property and feature tags for campsites Another question :-) There are hot showers available in a (different) camp ground so shower=hot, but you have to pay $1 for 5 minutes use, separately to paying to stay at

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

Creeks and rivers are tricky, since it's hard to confirm whether or not they are good for swimming. Tagging sport=swimming on certain nodes of a river or stream is sort of like a review or recommendation, and these are not good for the main OSM database. The linked page says

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

Looks good Joseph. One question, thanks, which has just come to mind while I was updating details on a camp ground. You have swimming_pool=yes/no to say whether the camp ground has a pool or not. The place I'm working on (& others that I know) doesn't have a swimming pool, but is on the banks