At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable
right of access supported by law.
Permissive implies something *far different to me*. It means that I can
walk onto the property without prior arrangement, and chances are nobody
will hassle me.
+1
a camp could be
2015-04-03 11:08 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com:
At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable
right of access supported by law.
Permissive implies something far different to me. It means that I can
walk onto the property without prior arrangement, and
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2015-03-30 4:01 GMT+02:00 johnw jo...@mac.com:
They are just private facilities, but they should be properly tagged as a
camp site, as people drive long distances to take scouts there, so they
should be
On Apr 7, 2015, at 6:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2015-04-03 11:08 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com:
At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable right
of access supported by law.
Permissive implies something far
Am 03.04.2015 um 12:57 schrieb Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com:
If the camp_site information 'tourist', 'scout', 'refugee' etc is outside OSM
then the render/user has no hope of determining which it is.
While I can agree that scouts are implying also a leisure component (besides eg
I don't say that tourist, scout, refugee should be outside OSM. My
statement is that the group key (tourism, shop, highway, ...) is not
needed, as all information is in the value (hotel, supermarket, motorway,
...). Attribute tags that give more information about the main key
(opening_hours=...)
Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong with
that ?
I feel access=private deals with it effectively, but you guys have more
experience in how data customers would deal with the data.
A scout camp is a camp. It is visited by people who are not directly
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
Scout camps ARE landmarks often, and valid destinations, even if they
don't offer services to the general public.
This is not an argument to map it as tourism=camp_site, this is just a
argument to map it. While I agree
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:26 AM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong
with that ?
I feel access=private deals with it effectively, but you guys have more
experience in how data customers would deal with the data.
Aren't all camp
At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable
right of access supported by law.
On 2015-04-03 09:56, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote
Aren't all camp sites access=private ? You always need the permission
On 3/04/2015 5:05 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com
mailto:bry...@obviously.com wrote:
Scout camps ARE landmarks often, and valid destinations, even if
they don't offer services to the general public.
This is not an argument to
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable
right of access supported by law.
Permissive implies something far different to me. It means that I can walk
onto the property without prior
This is an example of a more general discussion: the distinction between
land use (what it looks like) and what function it has. Similar cases are
being discussed for a building that looks like a church, but is not used
for religious services or a reception desk that is hidden in a non-descript
I know the problem, but while in the past we might have made new tags for
green sheep with 6 legs, the other extreme is to force everything where you
can stay with in a tent under tourism=camp_site.
That's what I understood from Martin's mail, they are too different, not
that he does not want you
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote
Aren't all camp sites access=private ? You always need the permission from
the site owner to access the grounds.
Camp sites in general are:
access=public
fee=yes
___
Tagging
On 3/04/2015 9:27 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
Looking at long-term OSM developments one wonders if such a classification shouldn't replace the current key=value structure: in almost all cases of main tags the key information is redundant - in tourism=hotel tourism doesn't give any additional
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:53 AM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
That seems very wrong, as we tag parking lots with access=private and they
are still mapped and rendered.
They are a camp site visited by hundreds, if not thousands of people, just
a private one.
+1
I think this is a rendering
I tend to include Boy Scout camps when I find them because they're often
well-known landmarks. Some that I've mapped include Camp Baldwin
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30299988 (which I'd love to detail map
since I've spent around 100 nights at that camp alone now but the canopy's
too dense
On Mar 29, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
I decided not to include the scout camp, because it then still might be
confused with a place where ordinary campers can stay (like is the case with
all options in the proposal). After the long discussion I have
2015-03-30 4:01 GMT+02:00 johnw jo...@mac.com:
They are just private facilities, but they should be properly tagged as a
camp site, as people drive long distances to take scouts there, so they
should be searchable and routable.
IMHO scout camps, while they merit to be mapped in certain
That seems very wrong, as we tag parking lots with access=private and they are
still mapped and rendered.
They are a camp site visited by hundreds, if not thousands of people, just a
private one.
A camp I worked at handled 1500 scouts in 6 weeks during the season! All of
them had to be
People don't drive to camp David in a minivan with a tent and some
marshmallows, go hiking in groups and tell stories around a camp fire.
None of the other camps you listed were recreation camps.
Boy Scout camps are.
Seems straight forward to me.
Javbw
On Mar 30, 2015, at 8:14 PM,
2015-03-30 13:20 GMT+02:00 John Willis jo...@mac.com:
Boy Scout camps are.
Seems straight forward to me.
well, you can't drive in a minivan there, set up your tent and sit around
their camp fire to tell them a story, you only could if you were a boy
scout of their group.
Cheers,
Martin
2015-03-30 12:53 GMT+02:00 johnw jo...@mac.com:
That seems very wrong, as we tag parking lots with access=private and they
are still mapped and rendered.
They are a camp site visited by hundreds, if not thousands of people, just
a private one.
what about military camps? Indigenous camps /
I can't walk into a factory and start running their drop forge either, but it's
still a factory... Known by the residents of the city... Travelled to by
hundreds of citizens of the city or region...
Javbw
On Mar 30, 2015, at 8:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
The 4 scout camps I have been to have tents set up in groups in clearings under
trees for visiting campers. The only permanent building is the dining hall.
That's what burned down at hual-cu-cuish.
maybe a new camp type is needed for these others- dormitory
School camps I have been to
A scout camp is a camp_site. It's just not accessible by the general
public. Tag with access=private. End of story.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:48 PM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote:
I can't walk into a factory and start running their drop forge either, but
it's still a factory... Known by the
2015-03-30 17:31 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com:
A scout camp is a camp_site. It's just not accessible by the general
public. Tag with access=private. End of story.
are scouts tourists?
With your same argument you could say: a toilet is a toilet, but we just
rejected the
Jan,
That has certainly addressed everyone concerns that I can see.
Thank you.
Hopefully it fits your requirements and original desires.
Jonathan
---
http://bigfatfrog67.me
From: Jan van Bekkum
Sent: Sunday, 29 March 2015 21:47
To: Tag discussion,
On Mar 30, 2015, at 8:49 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/03/2015 10:14 AM, David Bannon wrote:
I note you did not do 'scout camp' on there. Its equally specialised but
a different special I think ?? Hmm
David
From very distant memory those were temporary ..
some
I decided not to include the scout camp, because it then still might be
confused with a place where ordinary campers can stay (like is the case
with all options in the proposal). After the long discussion I have tried
to keep the proposal as clean and simple as possible. I hope someone else
will
Those are access=private + operator=[bsa or council, sponsor group]
You can also put a brand tag on it maybe brand=Boy Scouts of _.
It isn't a chain, and is affiliated loosely through the national group, but
operated by local groups.
My private Buddhist school has a little facility up in
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 10:49 +1100, Warin wrote:
.
From very distant memory those were temporary ..
some times once only, sometimes once every few years.
And they were restricted to scouts only .. thus access=scouts?
No Warin, don't think we are talking about the same sort of camp. There
I have made major changes to the proposal as a result of our discussions.
It it is strictly limited to camping type (designation) and does no longer
classify on facility level, ease of access or pricing.
It can be found here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_type%3D*.
So you have renamed it Jan ?
Happy to see the original name, camp_site, pop up in parallel ? Probably
make sense to deal with them both as closely as we can.
An outsider, someone who has not seen the effort put in here (especially
by you), may see these as competing entries but they are really
On 30/03/2015 10:14 AM, David Bannon wrote:
I note you did not do 'scout camp' on there. Its equally specialised but
a different special I think ?? Hmm
David
From very distant memory those were temporary ..
some times once only, sometimes once every few years.
And they were restricted
Hi Dave, I agree with that. I am thinking about camp_type=*. Also usable
for scout camps?
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:11 AM David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 07:09 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
1. Get a high level of classification of campsites based on
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 3:09 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 07:09 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
1. Get a high level of classification of campsites based on the
relation between the land owner and the camper
2. Get a classification of
Some participants in this discussion feel we are making little progress.
The cause is that contributors have two different agenda's:
1. Get a high level of classification of campsites based on the relation
between the land owner and the camper
2. Get a classification of regular campsites
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 07:09 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
1. Get a high level of classification of campsites based on the
relation between the land owner and the camper
2. Get a classification of regular campsites based on available
facilities.
Agreed Jan. Different
After yesterday's discussion I thought about the wording a bit more:
- We can use *camp_site=opportunistic_hospitality* for the hotels,
hostels etc. that don't have a separate camping area or amenities but offer
a place at their parking and some way of access to amenities for payment
Sorry folks, email client problems. Evolution and bugs !
David
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 19:10 +1100, David Bannon wrote:
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 06:41 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
* We can use camp_site=opportunistic_hospitality for the
hotels,
* We can use
Hi Pieren,
You are correct for most bush campsites where you stay mainly for the
beauty of the environment. I have mapped those myself only in cases other
reasons existed to map than. However, places you select for security or for
availability of amenities you want to have on the map. This will be
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 16:55 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
How about camp_site=hospitality for those hotels that offer camping on
their grounds, or certain parking lots that allow camping, e.g.,
WalMart.
The hotel industry is, after all, sometimes referred to as the
hospitality industry.
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 06:41 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
We can use camp_site=opportunistic_hospitality for
We can use tourism=camp_site:non_designated for all cases
Sorry Jan, people, me included, do not like =non_designated. Honestly,
I could learn to really dislike
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 06:41 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
We can use camp_site=opportunistic_hospitality for
We can use tourism=camp_site:non_designated for all cases
Sorry Jan, people, me included, do not like =non_designated. Honestly,
I could learn to really dislike
How about camp_site=hospitality for those hotels that offer camping on
their grounds, or certain parking lots that allow camping, e.g., WalMart.
The hotel industry is, after all, sometimes referred to as the hospitality
industry.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:30 PM, David Bannon
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 06:41 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
* We can use camp_site=opportunistic_hospitality for the
hotels,
* We can use tourism=camp_site:non_designated for all cases that
the
Sorry Jan, people, me included, do not like =non_designated. Honestly,
I
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum
jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Pieren,
I have mapped those myself only in cases other reasons
existed to map than.
But this is not what the first section suggests:
Beautiful place in the mountains, desert or at the beach - no
facilities,
True
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:24 PM Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum
jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Pieren,
I have mapped those myself only in cases other reasons
existed to map than.
But this is not what the first section suggests:
+1
Jonathan
http://bigfatfrog67.me
From: Pieren
Sent: Friday, 27 March 2015 10:48
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
We can use tourism=camp_site:non_designated for all cases
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 16:55 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
How about camp_site=hospitality for those hotels that offer camping on
their grounds, or certain parking lots that allow camping, e.g.,
WalMart.
A lot of pubs also have attached campsites, good for business as campers
don't have yo
On 28/03/2015 1:48 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum
jan.vanbek...@gmail.com mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
However, places you select for security or for availability of
amenities you want to have on the map
so can it be deduced from
So, explicit mapping is needed.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:20 PM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/03/2015 1:48 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
However, places you select for security or for availability of
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com
wrote:
How about camp_site=hospitality for those hotels that offer camping on
their grounds, or certain parking lots that allow camping, e.g., WalMart.
That will quickly get used for places with girls serving free drinks.
Looks fun, but how did you know you could stay there? Or did you just ask?
Jonathan
---
http://bigfatfrog67.me
From: Jan van Bekkum
Sent: Thursday, 26 March 2015 08:10
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
To give you a better impression of
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 05:51 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
Dave, I think we are after different things. Your proposal focuses on
availability of services, while mine tells more about the relation
between the camper and the land owner:
Yes Jan, I agree. You have summed it up perfectly ! I'm
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 09:10 +0100, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
To give you a better impression of what I mean with non-designated
campsites I uploaded images of places we stayed at in Iran, Ethiopia,
Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and Malawi. Have a look here and
enjoy. As you can see the quality
To give you a better impression of what I mean with non-designated
campsites I uploaded images of places we stayed at in Iran, Ethiopia,
Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and Malawi. Have a look here
https://plus.google.com/photos/+JanvanBekkum/albums/6130450615283723697 and
enjoy. As you can see
I better understand your requirements now, thanks for that.
I've looked at your site and pictures and feel we heave a fundamental problem.
Designated is fine and existing tags cover it but non_designated is harder to
agree to because of its temporary nature, I’m not sure OSM is the place for
Our blog can be found at www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl, video clips of our trips
at https://www.youtube.com/user/JanvanBekkum.
Many places we visited in Iran and east Africa for sure are no campgrounds
according to western standards, but if you need a place for the night your
standards adapt quickly. We
If it's there for years then it is a campsite no matter how it is advertised.
There is no point in separating designated and non-designated.
In my opinion those photos do not depict wild camping, you are camping in a car
park with some facilities available to the public. The is nothing
I am afraid we disagree then. After travelling around for almost 1.5 years
and attempting to tag over 200 sites where we stayed, my conclusion is that
it cannot be handled properly with the existing tags. That's why I made the
proposal.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:23 PM jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me
Non-designated is not necessarily temporary. Some hotels may offer the
service for many years, but it is not officially announced and not listed.
For overlanders this information is too important not to have it mapped
somehow.
Let me also give a few examples of wild camps where we stayed that
Examples of Wildcamping:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/487310@N25/pool/
Jonathan
---
http://bigfatfrog67.me
From: Jonathan H
Sent: Thursday, 26 March 2015 13:17
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
If it's there for years then it is a
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 12:36 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
Non-designated is not necessarily temporary. Some hotels may offer the
service for many years, but it is not officially announced and not
listed. For overlanders this information is too important not to have
it mapped somehow.
I still
On 27/03/2015 9:18 AM, David Bannon wrote:
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 12:36 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
Non-designated is not necessarily temporary. Some hotels may offer the
service for many years, but it is not officially announced and not
listed. For overlanders this information is too important
As well. If you look in the original proposal you find different categories
of sites in this groups. It can be the beauty of the place, security,
availability of some amenities.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:27 PM jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me wrote:
Those look fantastic, would you want to tag those as
Those look fantastic, would you want to tag those as Wildcamping?
Jonathan
http://bigfatfrog67.me
From: Jan van Bekkum
Sent: Thursday, 26 March 2015 14:11
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Fortunately we had those as well:
Fortunately we had those as well:
https://plus.google.com/photos/111767853767854777895/albums/6130545866082686641
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
So far I have created different nodes (or areas if known) for different
amenities and linked them by means of a site relation. The ones I typically
added to the camp_sites I mapped are amenity=restaurant, amenity=bar and
amenity=shower. I believe this is the correct way to do it as it allows for
On 25/03/2015 6:34 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
Ad 2: I oppose the definition of new attributes in this proposal as
each of them ears a separate discussion if needed. I do not want to
mix the discussions.
I agree. Each new attribute should be a separate proposal, discussion and
voting.
Before I update the proposal let me try to summarize where we stand:
1. There are three main categories of camp_sites: designated campsites,
non-designated campsites and wild camps. Non-designated campsites are
important for countries without a camping culture such as Ethiopia;
2. All
I agree that we should not use the star system or six categories It is
becoming far too complex for mappers and renderers. This level of
refinement must be achieved with additional attributes or extra amenities
in a relation.
I really do want to keep *non-designated* as currently proposed. It was
Jan, I looked at the link to your home page in the email - wow!
It looks like you've been all over Africa in that special truck. If the other
taggers haven't looked, check out the link in his email signature.
I feel that you know what you are talking about - if you think there needs to
be a
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 20:42 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
I really do want to keep non-designated as currently proposed. It was
my main reason to start with the proposal. I understand it is not
important in western countries, but it is vital in Africa and the
Middle East. It is a site with
In Africa they are non-designated. We have had situations in Ethiopia and
Tanzania that the campsite was invented on the spot. The picture in the
proposal gives a feeling what I am talking about. The site is the parking
or the courtyard, no designated space. On the other hand lists are
circulating
Dave, I think we are after different things. Your proposal focuses on
availability of services, while mine tells more about the relation between
the camper and the land owner:
- Designated: permission to camp, most likely the place is still there
tomorrow, service offering (whatever it is)
Sorry Jan, cannot find the proposal page quickly. But I think we may be
arguing about the meaning of designated ?
If a commercial operation 'allows' its park or courtyard to be used this
way, then I'd suggest they are, to some degree 'designating' it. Just by
not moving people on.
In the same
2015-03-23 17:59 GMT+01:00 Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com:
I agree with the proposal to have a different main tag for informal sites;
something like tourism=wild_camp. I guess some kind of RV/trekking
attribute would work as well, What we now are looking for is the proper
distinction
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:23 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
I think we still need categories in some form so that renders have a
hint of what they should do.
Or, we need rendering or preprocessing that gathers up all the amenities
within a given area
or relation into table
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 09:42 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:11 PM, David Bannon wrote
Are we better saying -
tourism=camp_site
toilets=yes
sanitary_dump_station=yes
amenity=showers
fee=yes
Yes.
While loosing faith in the proposal, I'd still like to make it work.
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 16:18 +0900, johnw wrote:
Also - as Martin mentioned - how is the fee associated with the
grounds change their usage? All the car camping grounds in Japan are
private businesses. They all charge a
On 25/03/2015 9:23 AM, David Bannon wrote:
On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 09:42 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:11 PM, David Bannon wrote
Are we better saying -
tourism=camp_site
toilets=yes
sanitary_dump_station=yes
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 11:06 +1100, Warin wrote:
No, not a decision for the render but information for the end user .. the
most important pero=son is the end user!
'Customers' first! :-)
I don't think there are too many end users who look up the raw data!
The map user wants to search for
Standard vs designated needs to be rethought.
I would suggest designated, unimproved, informal, trekking. This would
alleviate so many classification issues.
Designated is a campsite. Is it for Tents? for car campers? for caravans? for
RVs? who cares. Detail that
This is a place where you
On 25/03/2015 12:38 PM, David Bannon wrote:
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 11:06 +1100, Warin wrote:
No, not a decision for the render but information for the end user .. the most
important person is the end user!
'Customers' first! :-)
I don't think there are too many end users who look up the raw
2015-03-24 9:16 GMT+01:00 jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me:
I object to any mapping, let alone tagging, of “Wild Camp” sites. By
mapping these places they will become overused and therefore no
longer “Wild”.
this is an issue that lies within the responsibility of the individual
mapper, IMHO. Just
In Africa we have been desperately looking for such places.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:11 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
OK, I'm struggling. I started answering Dave S's stuff (below) and
realised I was really arguing away the whole catagory approach. Sigh.
Are we better saying -
tourism=camp_site
toilets=yes
I think the table is basically correct. I added showers, amended the
pitches and added access hours. In Europe it is very common that no pitches
are defined. Staffing=yes means that during at least defined period of the
day (say 7:00-10:00 and 16:00-20:00). Usually you are not able to register
I object to any mapping, let alone tagging, of “Wild Camp” sites. By mapping
these places they will become overused and therefore no longer “Wild”.
If it's in a country where Wild Camping is legal then the area will be abused
and damaged, if it's in a country where Wild Camping is illegal
On Mar 24, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote:
To me, and I think others agree, designated means official. Any place where
people camp in a specially prepared environment has been designated at some
point, either by the government or a business owner;
Looking at the current definition of tourism=caravan_site it is very close
to what I had in mind with camp_site=designated.
So the updated proposal would become:
- Designated - standard, designated (duplication of
tourism=caravan_site), trekking in the current proposal; to be refined with
2015-03-20 21:59 GMT+01:00 Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com:
I have updated the proposal
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* with
the feedback as much as possible.
Appearantly there are already people using this key following a different
scheme, (looks
Ah, Jan, you added too many conditions! The majority of campgrounds United
States parks are not guarded, and almost never fully staffed. The larger
parks have someone at the gate to collect money, but they do not guard
the campers Most of the parks in Alaska work on the honor system: uoip ut
your
2015-03-23 13:02 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
I don't like the idea that a designated camp site has to be
non-commercial, I'd rather tag that aspect with the fee key.
to explain a bit more: we use designated in other parts of our tagging
(access) as a stronger yes
I have renamed commercial to standard as it is the most common
campground and can include campgrounds that have all facilities of a
privately run campground, but are run by a government body (like the South
African parks). I also added details to the description of this category of
campground
OK, I'm struggling. I started answering Dave S's stuff (below) and
realised I was really arguing away the who catagory approach. Sigh.
Are we better saying -
tourism=camp_site
toilets=yes
sanitary_dump_station=yes
amenity=showers
fee=yes
tourism=camp_site
toilets=no
sanitary_dump_station=no
On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 19:12 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
The majority of campgrounds United States parks are not guarded,
Agree, guarded is not a very friendly word !
and almost never fully staffed.
yes, fully staffed implies 24/7 or thereabouts. We need to include
parks where some
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
