Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 access=permissive (trespassing tolerated) or access=private / access=customers where private and customers seem similar. access=yes /public (a right for everyone to access) is not a situation I have ever encountered on a camp site, but it might eventually exist. access=public is the norm for USA national and state park campgrounds. No gates. Anyone can walk in for day use, but permission is required to hold a given spot or stay overnight. Private campgrounds may be access=customers or rarely access=permissive. There's a strong difference between day use and overnight use. Day use fees may apply, or fees for certain activities like showers or RV dumps. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 chances are nobody will hassle me. +1 a camp could be access=permissive (trespassing tolerated) or access=private / access=customers where private and customers seem similar. access=yes /public (a right for everyone to access) is not a situation I have ever encountered on a camp site, but it might eventually exist. Permissive is used quite frequently for objects that are nominally private, but habitually used by the public. +1 An fine example is a particular local rock park, or at least what looks like a park. It's not city owned, it's fully private, and correctly tagged access=permissive. ownership is something different, at least in some countries which I know it is possible that the public has a legal right to access a privately owned site / land. This is typically written in the land register or is based on some general law (e.g. the public may enter any forest and any not-fenced field in Germany, but many of them are privately owned). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 searchable and routable. IMHO scout camps, while they merit to be mapped in certain cases (recurring camp on the same spot, or camp exists for at least several months), should not be tagged with tourism=camp_site. As you write, they are private facilities and no-one can go there to camp besides the scouts of the organization that operates the camp. At least in the Boy Scouts of America system, most districts, particularly at lesser used properties, do issue usage permits for their camps to outside individuals and groups. I'd go with access=private on that, since while it's not open to the general public, it's still a campground to roughly the same degree as an Oklahoma State Parks group camp (ie, offering either high volume tent camping or a mix of tent camping and hostel-style barracks; Oklahoma State Parks tend very nice, closer to what you'd find at a midrange private resort than what you'd typically find in the public commons outside the Soviet Union before it's collapse). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 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 access=permissive (trespassing tolerated) or access=private / access=customers where private and customers seem similar. access=yes /public (a right for everyone to access) is not a situation I have ever encountered on a camp site, but it might eventually exist. Any camp that doesn't allow any access, even hikers/bikers without paying a fee is access=customers, right? Even if it is a public park? if you can access the camp without a car (like a lot of state parks) for just daytime access for free and then fee=yes on the parking... And some camping:fee= or something to show that camping there is for a fee, but independent of actual access to the grounds? A lot of govt operated campgrounds Do feel like access=public, as you can show up there and expect access during business hours of the camp (like a library) - but *using the camping specific amenities* requires a permit/fee - but is still open to the general public (like a public park or public parking, which are also subject to regulation fees, now that I think about it, like parking meters and time limits). Permissive would have to be on any privately owned camps that open to the general public right? Or am I misunderstanding the access=key? Javbw. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 education), I think that refugee camps aren't a part of camp sites that fit into the tourism definition (people traveling for leisure), neither are detention camps cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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=...) remain needed. Something like this is absolutely wrong, because it suggests that a refugee camp is something touristic.: tourism=camp_site camp_type=refugee_camp On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 12:45 PM Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 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 education), I think that refugee camps aren't a part of camp sites that fit into the tourism definition (people traveling for leisure), neither are detention camps 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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 affiliated with those who run the camp. People visit the camp as a form of vacation activity. They have to be a member of the overall national body, but people who make reservations for their group are usually not part of the operating group, and travel hundreds of KM to visit it, usually by car, and is a camping landmark for thousands and thousands of campers. To almost all the people who visit it, it is a far-away tourist destination that they have never seen, and will visit only on vacations. There are also other private camps that are equally well known, such as school camps, and lesser known ones that are private (usually religious or corporate). it would be a failure of OSM not to map them, and a failure not to show they require membership (access=private) as _so many other buildings and religious buildings do already. We don’t have highway=service and highway=private_service because there already is a way to show that it is a road and has private access through the access=private tag. Alleys and driveways are differentiated through the service= tag. If it is decided it is a big problem, such as amenity=toilets automatically implies public access, then, yea, I guess another category of campsite needs to be created to reflect their private nature. I think it easier to put that in camp_site=private_camp rather than making a new amenity tag. There would be several other types of affiliation based camps (religious retreats, school camps, corporate retreat facilities), so a “scout camp” might be too narrow. Amenity=private_camp would be good as well if that is also deemed too connected to amenity=camp_site. But is it necessary to make another amenity tag? also - If there is an affiliation / brand / chain = tag, it might also be helpful, as boy scout camps are operated like franchises - like a privately owned McDonalds. for example, the Los Angeles council owns/leases the land and operates the camp, so operator= Los Angeles BSA; but the brand or chain = Boy Scouts of America (for American example). Most large national boy scout groups are a basically a franchising company - giving their approval to local chapters operated by civic groups. This would let someone pick out all the scout camps through that additional brand/franchise/chain/etc= tag, but the operator would correctly show who is actually running the camp. Javbw On Apr 3, 2015, at 3:05 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com 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 map it as tourism=camp_site, this is just a argument to map it. While I agree with the latter (mapping it), I wonder whether there are enough similarities with other camp sites to map them as tourism=camp_site Right now I have the impression that every new tag has to be super general and that you need to add dozens of extra tags to understand what you are actually talking about. ( a bit exaggerated, I know). When you make a map to show all camp sites, are you interested in showing the scout camps ? I doubt so. Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong with that ? regards m ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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 with the latter (mapping it), I wonder whether there are enough similarities with other camp sites to map them as tourism=camp_site Right now I have the impression that every new tag has to be super general and that you need to add dozens of extra tags to understand what you are actually talking about. ( a bit exaggerated, I know). When you make a map to show all camp sites, are you interested in showing the scout camps ? I doubt so. Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong with that ? regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 sites access=private ? You always need the permission from the site owner to access the grounds. m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 from the site owner to access the grounds. Camp sites in general are: access=public fee=yes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 map it as tourism=camp_site, this is just a argument to map it. While I agree with the latter (mapping it), I wonder whether there are enough similarities with other camp sites to map them as tourism=camp_site Right now I have the impression that every new tag has to be super general and that you need to add dozens of extra tags to understand what you are actually talking about. ( a bit exaggerated, I know). When you make a map to show all camp sites, are you interested in showing the scout camps ? I doubt so. Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong with that ? Wrong? Nothing I can see. Best? Another question. Some want top down tagging. Some want tags for green sheep with 6 legs. What is best? Without a general statement of what is preferable no one has any basis for a decision. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 arrangement, and chances are nobody will hassle me. Permissive is used quite frequently for objects that are nominally private, but habitually used by the public. An fine example is a particular local rock park, or at least what looks like a park. It's not city owned, it's fully private, and correctly tagged access=permissive. The distinction between open to any member of the public with funds to pay and held in public trust is somewhat murky in OSM. The held in public trust lands can and do charge fees, exclude non-payers, and enforce compliance with rules. Also murky is proper tagging for open to members only, but membership applications are available to members of the public access=members is not established. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 building, but serves to welcome visitors. We had an example in Johannesburg of someone who ran two businesses: car parts and a campground. The reception of the campground was in the car parts shop two blocks away from the campground. If you have this information properly mapped you know that you need the function campground reception, but you look for a car parts shop. Similarly as a general tourist you are not interested in a scout camp, therefore the function should be mapped differently. So the land use may be campground, but the function is not. 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 information, because there are no other keys that go with the value hotel; a renderer still may have a lookup table that links hotel, motel, ... to the category tourism, but that information can stay outside the OSM database. It even gives confusion (refugee camps tagged as tourism=camp_site is not correct; the ongoing discussion about shop=storage_rental or amenity=storage_rental mainly leads to confusion, just storage_rental should be sufficient. On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:10 AM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: 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 arrangement, and chances are nobody will hassle me. Permissive is used quite frequently for objects that are nominally private, but habitually used by the public. An fine example is a particular local rock park, or at least what looks like a park. It's not city owned, it's fully private, and correctly tagged access=permissive. The distinction between open to any member of the public with funds to pay and held in public trust is somewhat murky in OSM. The held in public trust lands can and do charge fees, exclude non-payers, and enforce compliance with rules. Also murky is proper tagging for open to members only, but membership applications are available to members of the public access=members is not established. ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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 to map scout camps. There is no best, for each case we have to see whether it is appropriate to try to come up with a general tag that fits many objects and which requires subtags or just come up with new tag on top level. IMHO, scout camps are too different from camp sites that we could introduce a new tag for them. Similar: holiday stays, tents (or barracks) different: certain age groups, supervised, private there are probably other similarities or differences. Another (the most ?) important thing is that I cannot imagine that when you looking for a scout camp that you are interested to see where the camp sites are (or vice versa). This is different from parkings, if I need to park my car near an office, I'll be looking for the private parking of that office or a parking open to the public. I need both. regards m On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/04/2015 5:05 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: 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 with the latter (mapping it), I wonder whether there are enough similarities with other camp sites to map them as tourism=camp_site Right now I have the impression that every new tag has to be super general and that you need to add dozens of extra tags to understand what you are actually talking about. ( a bit exaggerated, I know). When you make a map to show all camp sites, are you interested in showing the scout camps ? I doubt so. Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong with that ? Wrong? Nothing I can see. Best? Another question. Some want top down tagging. Some want tags for green sheep with 6 legs. What is best? Without a general statement of what is preferable no one has any basis for a decision. ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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 mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 information, because there are no other keys that go with the value hotel; a renderer still may have a lookup table that links hotel, motel, ... to the category tourism, but that information can stay outside the OSM database. It even gives confusion (refugee camps tagged as tourism=camp_site is not correct; the ongoing discussion about shop=storage_rental or amenity=storage_rental mainly leads to confusion, just storage_rental should be sufficient. Not a good example. How is the render/user to chose between the shop' storage_rental and the amenity storage_rental ? Personal .. it is a shop. If the camp_site information 'tourist', 'scout', 'refugee' etc is outside OSM then the render/user has no hope of determining which it is. Should camp_site be moved to amenity? With camp_customer=tourist/scout/member/refugee ... Some could say that student accommodation run by universities are simply hotels .. but not for tourists. There are a fair few issues that arise when you try to get the logic of OSM. Precedence of shop key over amenity for me. But that is not stated anywhere in OSM. Let us keep the end user in sight .. One set have a GPS .. that has a search function that likes things classified a certain way thus the key structure? Another set have a map .. and they want symbols on it to represent things.. Another set have both the above.. What suits them? On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:10 AM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com mailto:bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Colin Smalecolin.sm...@xs4all.nl mailto: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 arrangement, and chances are nobody will hassle me. Permissive is used quite frequently for objects that are nominally private, but habitually used by the public. An fine example is a particular local rock park, or at least what looks like a park. It's not city owned, it's fully private, and correctly tagged access=permissive. The distinction between open to any member of the public with funds to pay and held in public trust is somewhat murky in OSM. The held in public trust lands can and do charge fees, exclude non-payers, and enforce compliance with rules. Also murky is proper tagging for open to members only, but membership applications are available to members of the public access=members is not established. Public things are closed to the public from time to time .. visiting 'dignitaries' can close major roads and cause lots of disruption to the public. Same with museums, art galleries, parks. So even if 'public' it may not be open all the time to the public. I think that regional variations will confuse these words .. so either 'we' need to accept that or define them within OSM. Eitehr way they will still be 'misinterpreted' by mappers. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 issue, not a tagging issue. An icon indicating a reservable site is all that's needed. Scout camps ARE landmarks often, and valid destinations, even if they don't offer services to the general public. This is completely different from mapping people's home toilets or rubbish bins. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 for me to recognize landmarks from above), Camp Russel http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/98826807 (a local Tulsa-area landmark, which sadly had to be fenced in recently due to the college kids vandalizing it frequently), and Will Rogers Scout Reservation http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/81176919 (which I've changed a couple tires near thanks to a section of bad asphalt hiding a tire-bursting pothole just west of Cleveland). On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:44 AM, 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 tried to keep the proposal as clean and simple as possible. I hope someone else will stand up to kick off the camp_site=* proposal for facility levels. On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:03 AM johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: 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 times once only, sometimes once every few years. And they were restricted to scouts only .. thus access=scouts? From that perspective .. not something I'd map. If they are permanent (repetitive even) then I'd map it .. but access=? It’s access=private with operator= or something. Scout Camps can be huge, with hundreds of people visiting year after year, they become local, sometimes regional, landmarks. And often times, even with smaller ones, the reason the people are going to the area is because there is a scout camp. The public map available for the California state park near my house clearly labels the Boy Scout camp in the middle of it (with “private” under the name, I think) because so many people are familiar with it’s location. It might also be a labeled feature on USGS topo maps, but I could be wrong. 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. 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 tried to keep the proposal as clean and simple as possible. I hope someone else will stand up to kick off the camp_site=* proposal for facility levels. On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:03 AM johnw jo...@mac.com mailto:jo...@mac.com wrote: On Mar 30, 2015, at 8:49 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com mailto: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…. My personal experience with a summer YMCA camp many decades ago and more recently looking at some Girl Scout, Boy Scout and church affiliated “camps” in the forest where I do some volunteer work leads me to think that many are a whole different thing. For example, visitors usually come in groups and are often housed in barracks or dormitories. The daily activities of the visitors are planned out and under adult supervision. Rather than have a restaurant I think you’d more likely find a mess hall or cafeteria with fixed menu and dining times, etc. Probably closer to a military camp (e.g. Camp Pendleton or Camp Roberts in California) in concept than to a place to go by yourself or with a couple of friends or family members to park a caravan/RV or pitch a tent for the night. Cheers, Tod smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 cases (recurring camp on the same spot, or camp exists for at least several months), should not be tagged with tourism=camp_site. As you write, they are private facilities and no-one can go there to camp besides the scouts of the organization that operates the camp. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 driven there into the high mountains - sure would be nice to have it labeled! it is not a private residence, it’s just a club building/facility, like a church, an office, or a factory. these are famous access places for millions people in america and abroad, and well known and labeled on regional maps. USGS http://www.efgh.com/c2c/c2ccuyamaca.gif http://www.efgh.com/c2c/c2ccuyamaca.gif Camp Hual-cu-cuish is a private boy scout camp (SW of the lake). Labeled on official US maps. the camp was destroyed by a wildfire in 2007 and is off of new park maps http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7484/15786015388_f69ba493ca.jpg Javbw. On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-03-30 4:01 GMT+02:00 johnw jo...@mac.com mailto: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 cases (recurring camp on the same spot, or camp exists for at least several months), should not be tagged with tourism=camp_site. As you write, they are private facilities and no-one can go there to camp besides the scouts of the organization that operates the camp. 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 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 / nomad camps? Concentration camps? Detention camps? Camp David? Camp David was built as a camp for federal government agents and their families by the WPA, so it must be a camp, no? Or see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp Shall we tag all those with tourism=camp_site? IMHO not. 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 / nomad camps? Concentration camps? Detention camps? Camp David? Camp David was built as a camp for federal government agents and their families by the WPA, so it must be a camp, no? Or see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp Shall we tag all those with tourism=camp_site? IMHO not. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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: 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 ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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 (California and Japan) are completely dormitory based - but they are not a hotel. For a dining hall in a tent camping site Camp_site:dining_hall=yes Javbw On Mar 30, 2015, at 6:14 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: 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 tried to keep the proposal as clean and simple as possible. I hope someone else will stand up to kick off the camp_site=* proposal for facility levels. On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:03 AM johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: 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…. My personal experience with a summer YMCA camp many decades ago and more recently looking at some Girl Scout, Boy Scout and church affiliated “camps” in the forest where I do some volunteer work leads me to think that many are a whole different thing. For example, visitors usually come in groups and are often housed in barracks or dormitories. The daily activities of the visitors are planned out and under adult supervision. Rather than have a restaurant I think you’d more likely find a mess hall or cafeteria with fixed menu and dining times, etc. Probably closer to a military camp (e.g. Camp Pendleton or Camp Roberts in California) in concept than to a place to go by yourself or with a couple of friends or family members to park a caravan/RV or pitch a tent for the night. Cheers, Tod ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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 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: 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 ___ 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 idea that every private toilet could be mapped as amenity=toilets, access=private. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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, strategy and related tools 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. Regards,___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 times once only, sometimes once every few years. And they were restricted to scouts only .. thus access=scouts? From that perspective .. not something I'd map. If they are permanent (repetitive even) then I'd map it .. but access=? It’s access=private with operator= or something. Scout Camps can be huge, with hundreds of people visiting year after year, they become local, sometimes regional, landmarks. And often times, even with smaller ones, the reason the people are going to the area is because there is a scout camp. The public map available for the California state park near my house clearly labels the Boy Scout camp in the middle of it (with “private” under the name, I think) because so many people are familiar with it’s location. It might also be a labeled feature on USGS topo maps, but I could be wrong. 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. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 stand up to kick off the camp_site=* proposal for facility levels. On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:03 AM johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: 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 times once only, sometimes once every few years. And they were restricted to scouts only .. thus access=scouts? From that perspective .. not something I'd map. If they are permanent (repetitive even) then I'd map it .. but access=? It’s access=private with operator= or something. Scout Camps can be huge, with hundreds of people visiting year after year, they become local, sometimes regional, landmarks. And often times, even with smaller ones, the reason the people are going to the area is because there is a scout camp. The public map available for the California state park near my house clearly labels the Boy Scout camp in the middle of it (with “private” under the name, I think) because so many people are familiar with it’s location. It might also be a labeled feature on USGS topo maps, but I could be wrong. 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. 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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 the mountains for camping. The school also operates a school camp. They are not access=Buddhist students and access=Kiryu public students, They are both access=private. And set via operator (or just the name). Maybe there is a group or affiliation or similar tag, but access is not the place. Sent from my iPhone 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 times once only, sometimes once every few years. And they were restricted to scouts only .. thus access=scouts? From that perspective .. not something I'd map. If they are permanent (repetitive even) then I'd map it .. but 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 are quite a number of very permanent camp grounds owned by the Scout Association in Victoria, AU. I have personal knowledge of 5, my guess is there are very many more. I know there a lot worldwide. They may be 100 or more acres each. We'd need show the perimeter and some facilities. Reception ? :-(.I expect there are a number of other, limited access camp grounds, church, school etc owned. Being a specialised camp, are they best mapped under Jan's special provisions ? The key is, are we telling the end user more about the camp when we talk about its 'type' than when we talk about its 'facilities' ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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*. Regards, ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 not. As we have established ! I note you did not do 'scout camp' on there. Its equally specialised but a different special I think ?? Hmm David On Sun, 2015-03-29 at 20:47 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: 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. Regards, ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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 to scouts only .. thus access=scouts? From that perspective .. not something I'd map. If they are permanent (repetitive even) then I'd map it .. but access=? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 the relation between the land owner and the camper 2. Get a classification of regular campsites based on available facilities. Agreed Jan. Different things. However, I think the vast majority of campers are also more interested in 2). Your Overlanders are an important group but a small minority. I think the term camp_site is an important resource and needs to be applied where most will be looking for it. So, to deal with 1), a fairly specialist need, you really need a new term that reflects that specialist need. Maybe camp_business_type=* ? David I made the initial proposal to solve the first issue. I personally look at mapping as an overlander, often staying in countries without normal campsites. The discussion so far gives a reasonable picture how the first item should be mapped, but we are struggling with the exact tag names - camp_site= non_designated etc. (not being a native speaker doesn't help here :-( ). I will update the proposal and can bring it to voting on short notice. The second issue should be addressed with a different key (camp_site_facilities=basic etc. or so). It requires more discussion and has to have its own proposal. I will be hitting the road again in about a month from now, therefore I don't want to own the second proposal. Bryce, as you seem to be very much interested in the second issue, would you be willing to take this one? Thanks, Jan ___ 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 regular campsites based on available
facilities.
Agreed Jan. Different things.
However, I think the vast majority of campers are also more interested
in 2).
Different tags for different folks. Don't try to mash it into one scheme.
amenity=camp_site
showers=whatever
internet=whatever
landowner_permission={official_paid,official_free,permissive_free,unstated,customary}
Where the landowner is either taking a fee,
putting up permission signs,
tolerating heavy and frequent use,
tolerating occasional use,
not stating anything,
prohibiting but not enforcing,
running people off with guns.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 based on available facilities. I made the initial proposal to solve the first issue. I personally look at mapping as an overlander, often staying in countries without normal campsites. The discussion so far gives a reasonable picture how the first item should be mapped, but we are struggling with the exact tag names - camp_site= non_designated etc. (not being a native speaker doesn't help here :-( ). I will update the proposal and can bring it to voting on short notice. The second issue should be addressed with a different key (camp_site_facilities=basic etc. or so). It requires more discussion and has to have its own proposal. I will be hitting the road again in about a month from now, therefore I don't want to own the second proposal. Bryce, as you seem to be very much interested in the second issue, would you be willing to take this one? Thanks, Jan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 things. However, I think the vast majority of campers are also more interested in 2). Your Overlanders are an important group but a small minority. I think the term camp_site is an important resource and needs to be applied where most will be looking for it. So, to deal with 1), a fairly specialist need, you really need a new term that reflects that specialist need. Maybe camp_business_type=* ? David I made the initial proposal to solve the first issue. I personally look at mapping as an overlander, often staying in countries without normal campsites. The discussion so far gives a reasonable picture how the first item should be mapped, but we are struggling with the exact tag names - camp_site= non_designated etc. (not being a native speaker doesn't help here :-( ). I will update the proposal and can bring it to voting on short notice. The second issue should be addressed with a different key (camp_site_facilities=basic etc. or so). It requires more discussion and has to have its own proposal. I will be hitting the road again in about a month from now, therefore I don't want to own the second proposal. Bryce, as you seem to be very much interested in the second issue, would you be willing to take this one? Thanks, Jan ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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 and that don't advertise. In the earlier discussion we have called this category non designated. It is a long phrase but covers exactly what is meant; - We can use *tourism=camp_site:non_designated* for all cases that the area is not (permanently or ad-hoc) designated. This included the following real life cases: - Beautiful place in the mountains, desert or at the beach - no facilities, usually no explicit owner's permission (wild camp). We can add attribute *camp_site=trekking* for trekking camps; - In a country where camping is free (as in free speech) and free camping is safe: a nice parking in the neighbourhood of public amenities. From our experience: - The park in Tabriz, Iran as mentioned yesterday - The kite beach in Dubai as mentioned yesterday - we didn't pay there and didn't have to ask the land owner for permission; - The corniche in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, next to a mosque with water and toilets - free and no permission asked; - In countries where free camping is not safe: - Parking of a local police station, an option we had in Omorate, Ethiopia; - Area of a mission post school like we had in Tanzania; - Next to a village, like we had in Zimbabwe - we paid some money to the village's chief, otherwise it might have been not safe. The reason I would want to put it on the map is that the village was hidden and few villages were in the area. If we hadn't been tipped by other tourists we wouldn't have found it; - Standard campgrounds (permanently present, advertised, paid for or free) can get attributes to indicate the level of service (for example *camp_site= serviced*. The categories includes the basic overnight RV places as well as full featured campgrounds. I would like to make definition of these attributes a new, separate proposal that will result in additional values for tag *camp_site=**, Of course not every non-designated place is mapped. Non-designated places we used that I have not mapped include: - The land of farms in Turkey and Iran where we were permitted to stay - not mapped because of privacy of the owner and because the culture is that every farmer in these countries would allow you to camp; - Desert sites in north Sudan - almost any place there is beautiful and quiet; - Villages along the road in Sudan - can be seen from the road and every village would allow you to camp. If no strong objections against the wording I propose here come back I'll update the proposal as the change in meaning of phrases becomes confusing. Regards, Jan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 tourism=camp_site:non_designated for all cases that the Sorry Jan, people, me included, do not like =non_designated. Honestly, I could learn to really dislike =opportunistic_hospitality quite quickly too ! I think two categories for these things is too many and 25 character in a tag is too many. With thought, I think (my suggestion of) adding camp_site=sponsored is a bad idea too. I'd prefer the list I posted early and we invent a new subtag to associate with any camp_site= such as sponsored=yes to deal with your case. Or do camp_site=basic:sponsored. Attractive vistas, fees, etc can all be dealt with with tags. 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 more of an issue in Africa than in Europe, but in countries without a camping culture you need this. In my earlier mail I have given a number of examples of such places that we visited. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:50 AM Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: 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 that the area is not (permanently or ad-hoc) designated. This included the following real life cases: Jan, I really appreciate your efforts to find a consensus. But I couldn't agree on tagging such informal locations. It is so subjective, it can be set potentially everywhere in the countryside, everywhere you can install a tent. If the aim is to advertise a nice point of view, the risk is also that you encourage wild camping on the same place, increasing tourists attendance (and littering). The best location for wild camping is a beautiful and unique spot which was never used before you and will never be used after your night, no ? Pieren ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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. Sure, =hospitality would be a reasonable value too. I guess I backed away a bit because I was thinking that the other values, basic, standard, delux, whatever were all about what the site offers in terms of facilities. =hospitality or =sponsored is more about the business arrangement. Thats why I think camp_site=standard:hospitality is more consistent. The =standard says what facilities are there, the :hospitality says its one of these yeah, you can park here if you like sites. Two different sorts of info. But I would not vote against the camp_site=hospitality model. I think 'sponsored' is a touch clearer David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 =opportunistic_hospitality quite quickly too ! I think two categories for these things is too many and 25 character in a tag is too many. With thought, I think (my suggestion of) adding camp_site=sponsored is a bad idea too. I'd prefer the list I posted early and we invent a new subtag to associate with any camp_site= such as sponsored=yes to deal with your case. Or do camp_site=basic:sponsored. Attractive vistas, fees, etc can all be dealt with with tags. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 =opportunistic_hospitality quite quickly too ! I think two categories for these things is too many and 25 character in a tag is too many. With thought, I think (my suggestion of) adding camp_site=sponsored is a bad idea too. I'd prefer the list I posted early and we invent a new subtag to associate with any camp_site= such as sponsored=yes to deal with your case. Or do camp_site=basic:sponsored. Attractive vistas, fees, etc can all be dealt with with tags. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 dban...@internode.on.net wrote: 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 tourism=camp_site:non_designated for all cases that the Sorry Jan, people, me included, do not like =non_designated. Honestly, I could learn to really dislike =opportunistic_hospitality quite quickly too ! I think two categories for these things is too many and 25 character in a tag is too many. With thought, I think (my suggestion of) adding camp_site=sponsored is a bad idea too. I'd prefer the list I posted early and we invent a new subtag to associate with any camp_site= such as sponsored=yes to deal with your case. Or do camp_site=basic:sponsored. Attractive vistas, fees, etc can all be dealt with with tags. 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 -- 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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 could learn to really dislike =opportunistic_hospitality quite quickly too ! I think two categories for these things is too many and 25 character in a tag is too many. With thought, I think (my suggestion of) adding camp_site=sponsored is a bad idea too. I'd prefer the list I posted early and we invent a new subtag to associate with any camp_site= such as sponsored=yes to deal with your case. Or do camp_site=basic:sponsored. Attractive vistas, fees, etc can all be dealt with with tags. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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, usually no explicit owner's permission (wild camp). We can add attribute camp_site=trekking for trekking camps; Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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: Beautiful place in the mountains, desert or at the beach - no facilities, usually no explicit owner's permission (wild camp). We can add attribute camp_site=trekking for trekking camps; Pieren ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
+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 that the area is not (permanently or ad-hoc) designated. This included the following real life cases: Jan, I really appreciate your efforts to find a consensus. But I couldn't agree on tagging such informal locations. It is so subjective, it can be set potentially everywhere in the countryside, everywhere you can install a tent. If the aim is to advertise a nice point of view, the risk is also that you encourage wild camping on the same place, increasing tourists attendance (and littering). The best location for wild camping is a beautiful and unique spot which was never used before you and will never be used after your night, no ? Pieren ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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 drive. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 other features on the map ? that would be a reason not to map it explicitly. Perceived security is not something you can determine from a map. Amenities ... such as water quality .. not mapped at this stage, no tags! showers inside a hotel (or other places .. like a roadhouse in Australia).. not usually mapped ... and no tags to indicate if they are available to non guests. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 amenities you want to have on the map so can it be deduced from other features on the map ? that would be a reason not to map it explicitly. Perceived security is not something you can determine from a map. Amenities ... such as water quality .. not mapped at this stage, no tags! showers inside a hotel (or other places .. like a roadhouse in Australia).. not usually mapped ... and no tags to indicate if they are available to non guests. ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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. hospitality has way too many other meanings. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 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 of the places varies wildly. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, Jan van Bekkum www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com 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: Designated: permission to camp, most likely the place is still there tomorrow, service offering (whatever it is) is stable, publicly announced as campground; Non-designated: permission to camp, policy and services may change overnight, not publicly announced as campground (no signs, no listings); Wild: no permission to camp (but no prohibition either), sometimes a policy, situation may change overnight, not announced. Regards, Jan___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 afraid I think my version is, perhaps, what the end user is more interested in. Further, can we expect the mapper to be able determine and express the relationship between camper and land owner. We should map what we see. Hey, where is this link John mentioned to your rig ? David * Designated: permission to camp, most likely the place is still there tomorrow, service offering (whatever it is) is stable, publicly announced as campground; * Non-designated: permission to camp, policy and services may change overnight, not publicly announced as campground (no signs, no listings); * Wild: no permission to camp (but no prohibition either), sometimes a policy, situation may change overnight, not announced. Regards, Jan ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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 of the places varies wildly. Yep, as you say, wildly ! I would not consider them camp sites to be honest ! I am not as organised as you, but just uploaded a couple of my sort of camp sites - http://bannons.id.au/uploads/agate_creek.jpg http://bannons.id.au/uploads/obriens.jpg Its going to be hard to talk about these in the same voice Is the solution to invent a set new of tags ? Or qualifiers to the suggested values ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 the quality of the places varies wildly. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com 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: - Designated: permission to camp, most likely the place is still there tomorrow, service offering (whatever it is) is stable, publicly announced as campground; - Non-designated: permission to camp, policy and services may change overnight, not publicly announced as campground (no signs, no listings); - Wild: no permission to camp (but no prohibition either), sometimes a policy, situation may change overnight, not announced. Regards, Jan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 such transitory, temporary data. If a place that many travellers have found over a period of time exists then it is as permanent as any commercial campsite therefore can be tagged as now. As for Wildcamp spots then this is just a place you’ve found convenient to stop and shouldn’t be mapped other than as a car park or layby using existing tags. Wildcamping is a very specific activity and shouldn’t made official. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Jan van Bekkum Sent: Thursday, 26 March 2015 10:56 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 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 also had many superb wild camps (different set of images I am happy to share). You must have visited the place or have a report from earlier visitors to map it properly, but once you have been at the place classification is very simple and well visible. Most often we found the non-designated places from reports and blogs of earlier travellers (we made an overview ourselves as well http://www.deeindervoorbij.nl/camping.html), from travel guides like Lonely Planet or by just asking at hotels. We recently came in touch with iOverlander. iOverlander currently maintains a proprietary database, but considers to get the hard data from OSM in future. Soft data (visitor reports and ratings) and images would stay in their own database. As far as tagging is concerned I think it is quite simple. We have three main categories designated, non-designated and wild. As designated is the default it would not need a special attribute; non-designated would get an extra attribute while wild would get it own namespace tag. Trekking camps are in the designated group. Classification as proposed by Dave Bannon a.o. would be by means of an additional attribute tag for designated campsites. Any category (also wild) can have additional attributes to describe facilities. Examples: Regular campground with toilets, water, power, shower, internet: tourism=camp_site camp_site=serviced (definition Dave B.) internet=wlan A hotel offering to put the car on their parking lot and a toilet: tourism=camp_site camp_site=non_designated toilets=yes A place next to a city park with public toilets (like we used in Iran): tourism=wild_camp_site toilets=yes On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:04 AM David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: 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 of the places varies wildly. Yep, as you say, wildly ! I would not consider them camp sites to be honest ! I am not as organised as you, but just uploaded a couple of my sort of camp sites - http://bannons.id.au/uploads/agate_creek.jpg http://bannons.id.au/uploads/obriens.jpg Its going to be hard to talk about these in the same voice Is the solution to invent a set new of tags ? Or qualifiers to the suggested values ? 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 also had many superb wild camps (different set of images I am happy to share). You must have visited the place or have a report from earlier visitors to map it properly, but once you have been at the place classification is very simple and well visible. Most often we found the non-designated places from reports and blogs of earlier travellers (we made an overview ourselves as well http://www.deeindervoorbij.nl/camping.html), from travel guides like Lonely Planet or by just asking at hotels. We recently came in touch with iOverlander http://ioverlander.com/. iOverlander currently maintains a proprietary database, but considers to get the hard data from OSM in future. Soft data (visitor reports and ratings) and images would stay in their own database. As far as tagging is concerned I think it is quite simple. We have three main categories designated, non-designated and wild. As designated is the default it would not need a special attribute; non-designated would get an extra attribute while wild would get it own namespace tag. Trekking camps are in the designated group. Classification as proposed by Dave Bannon a.o. would be by means of an additional attribute tag for designated campsites. Any category (also wild) can have additional attributes to describe facilities. Examples: - Regular campground with toilets, water, power, shower, internet: tourism=camp_site camp_site=serviced (definition Dave B.) internet=wlan - A hotel offering to put the car on their parking lot and a toilet: tourism=camp_site camp_site=non_designated toilets=yes - A place next to a city park with public toilets (like we used in Iran): tourism=wild_camp_site toilets=yes On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:04 AM David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: 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 of the places varies wildly. Yep, as you say, wildly ! I would not consider them camp sites to be honest ! I am not as organised as you, but just uploaded a couple of my sort of camp sites - http://bannons.id.au/uploads/agate_creek.jpg http://bannons.id.au/uploads/obriens.jpg Its going to be hard to talk about these in the same voice Is the solution to invent a set new of tags ? Or qualifiers to the suggested values ? 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 “Wild” about it. All of these examples can be covered by existing tags. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Jan van Bekkum Sent: Thursday, 26 March 2015 12:36 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 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 should be on the map: Guarded section of a car parking next to a city park with public toilet (Tabriz, Iran). Amongst overlanders this is the one place to go to in Tabriz. In Iran we had quite a few situations like this. Kite Beach in Dubai: as Dubai is very densely built up there are few good places to stay. The kite beach is a parking at the beach near the Kite Club. The Kite Club has clean public toilets and a beach shower. Images are here. Reagrds, Jan etmap.org/listinfo/tagging___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 wrote: 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 “Wild” about it. All of these examples can be covered by existing tags. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me *From:* Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, 26 March 2015 12:36 *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org 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 should be on the map: - Guarded section of a car parking next to a city park with public toilet (Tabriz, Iran). Amongst overlanders this is the one place to go to in Tabriz. In Iran we had quite a few situations like this. - Kite Beach in Dubai: as Dubai is very densely built up there are few good places to stay. The kite beach is a parking at the beach near the Kite Club. The Kite Club has clean public toilets and a beach shower. Images are here https://plus.google.com/photos/+JanvanBekkum/albums/6130521674529892033. Reagrds, Jan etmap.org/listinfo/tagging 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 should be on the map: - Guarded section of a car parking next to a city park with public toilet (Tabriz, Iran). Amongst overlanders this is the one place to go to in Tabriz. In Iran we had quite a few situations like this. - Kite Beach in Dubai: as Dubai is very densely built up there are few good places to stay. The kite beach is a parking at the beach near the Kite Club. The Kite Club has clean public toilets and a beach shower. Images are here https://plus.google.com/photos/+JanvanBekkum/albums/6130521674529892033. Reagrds, Jan etmap.org/listinfo/tagging https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 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 “Wild” about it. All of these examples can be covered by existing tags. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Jan van Bekkum Sent: Thursday, 26 March 2015 12:36 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 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 should be on the map: Guarded section of a car parking next to a city park with public toilet (Tabriz, Iran). Amongst overlanders this is the one place to go to in Tabriz. In Iran we had quite a few situations like this. Kite Beach in Dubai: as Dubai is very densely built up there are few good places to stay. The kite beach is a parking at the beach near the Kite Club. The Kite Club has clean public toilets and a beach shower. Images are here. Reagrds, Jan etmap.org/listinfo/tagging___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 think the the problem is the word, non-designated. Its a contradiction IMHO. Just about everywhere is non-designated, what makes these particular spots special ? The answer is that they are somehow sponsored by some hotel or what ever. So would a better approach be camp_site=sponsored ? You are camping there because the Hotel either encourages, or at least does not discourage camping. I guess they get some benefit and they may provide some services and do provide some security. The defining characteristic of this camp site is its associated with the Hotel. Would that cover the Kite Club you mention ? Is the Kite Club a sponsoring body ? Or just a name for a location ? If its just a location, then camp_site=basic sounds like it fits. (camp_site=* ) - sponsored = A place to camp near a (commercial?) operation that may provide some limited facilities and security. basic = nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle. standard = Basic + toilets and water serviced = Standard + shower + power fully_serviced = Serviced + camp kitchen + Laundry deluxe = Fully_Serviced + swimming pool/restaurant David Let me also give a few examples of wild camps where we stayed that should be on the map: * Guarded section of a car parking next to a city park with public toilet (Tabriz, Iran). Amongst overlanders this is the one place to go to in Tabriz. In Iran we had quite a few situations like this. * Kite Beach in Dubai: as Dubai is very densely built up there are few good places to stay. The kite beach is a parking at the beach near the Kite Club. The Kite Club has clean public toilets and a beach shower. Images are here. Reagrds, Jan etmap.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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 not to have it mapped somehow. I still think the the problem is the word, non-designated. Its a contradiction IMHO. Just about everywhere is non-designated, what makes these particular spots special ? The answer is that they are somehow sponsored by some hotel or what ever. So would a better approach be camp_site=sponsored ? You are camping there because the Hotel either encourages, or at least does not discourage camping. I guess they get some benefit and they may provide some services and do provide some security. The defining characteristic of this camp site is its associated with the Hotel. The general area has no camping facilities of any kind. The hotel provides basic services (access to toilet and maybe showers) due to the demand but they don't really 'encourage' camping. Some places in India do the same .. and they are not hotels by any description! Road side fast food + bar would be a better description. Would that cover the Kite Club you mention ? Is the Kite Club a sponsoring body ? Or just a name for a location ? I'd think there is a group of people that fly kites .. and they have a club building there. They make some money by letting campers use their facilities. If its just a location, then camp_site=basic sounds like it fits. (camp_site=* ) - sponsored = A place to camp near a (commercial?) operation that may provide some limited facilities and security. basic = nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle. standard = Basic + toilets and water serviced = Standard + shower + power fully_serviced = Serviced + camp kitchen + Laundry deluxe = Fully_Serviced + swimming pool/restaurant David In some parts of the world you can get basic accommodation at religious facilities (churches, mosques to name two). The world is a big place .. what is appropriate to be mapped in one part may be inappropriate in another. So tags that are required in some parts may not be suitable for use in others. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 Wildcamping? Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me *From:* Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, 26 March 2015 14:11 *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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: https://plus.google.com/photos/111767853767854777895/albums/6130545866082686641___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 different attributes for different amenities. For example if the restaurant has other opening hours than the bar you can map that. The site relation tells that the amenities all belong to the camp_site. However, I do not know how this is rendered in practice. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:23 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net 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 amenity=showers fee=yes Yes. Because camp sites will defy categorization. No, sorry, I don't think that works either ! Looking at a typical commercial book that describes camp sites, you expect to see a list, maybe a long one, things like toilets, water, showers, laundary, BBQ, fire place and so one. Many of these are already in amenity=*. But its silly to do on one node or area - tourism=camp_site name=Happy Campers Rest amenity=bbq amenity=fireplace amenity=bench amenity=waste_disposal So, I'd need to map each as an individual node. A search of the data will not necessarily associate the BBQ with Happy Campers Rest Caravan Park. Thats just as silly. Someone making a map wants to see one object with these attributes so they can decide what to render and how to render it. tourism=camp_site:amenity=bbq;fireplace;drinking_water;waste_disposal;toilets;showers;bench name=Happy Camper Rest Ugly but works in terms of associating the data in a meaningful way. I think we still need categories in some form so that renders have a hint of what they should do. David But definitely add official there, or a least operator. I want to know in advance if the tent symbol on the map represents a place I can comfortably stay without getting woken up at 5am by a farmer with a shotgun * -Bryce * Been there, done that. ** Also add stay_limit=7 nights, internet_access=wlan, camp_host=no, network=, campfire_permitted=season, ranger_programs, website. ___ 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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. There is no requirement to have them all dealt with together. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 designated campsites have in common that they have been set up to camp and that you are allowed to camp there. We have discussed a further subclassification of the designated campsites in (1) standard campsites with more facilities, (2) basic campsites with few facilities and (3) trekking campsites. Also a star system with even more levels came up. The perception what should go in which category depends on the place in the world as well as personal experience and interest. We came up with a draft list of minimal requirements for the standard campsite. That list could develop to the criterion to separate these subclasses; 3. The proposed definition of the basic campsite is very close to the existing tourism=caravan_site; 4. A more detailed description of a campsite requires many more attributes, some of which exist such as (internet access), some of which have been proposed a few years ago (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site) but never reached the voting stage and some of which are completely new. The current proposal does not address these attribute tags; 5. No clarity exists how we best can handle the potentially many amenities that came with a campsite: amenity=aaa;bbb;ccc under the tourism=camp_site tage or a site relation with a node for each amenity. The latter approach has been in the proposal from the beginning; 6. A new namespace tag should be defined for the wild camp. It depreciates impromptu=yes; 7. In some situations large areas have been identified where parking is allowed, but without specific provisions for camping (for example in a park where it is allowed to camp anywhere at least 200m from the lake). This situation should be removed from the proposal as it is not really a campsite So the main questions to the group: 1. Do we want the subclassification of the designated campsites in the proposal? 2. Do we want to include ideas for new attributes in this proposal? Ad 1: I am still in favour of the subclassification. When you are travelling you will be aware of regional differences (I know how an Kenyan campsite typically differs from a German one) and if the classification is too difficult a high level of detailing is possible with attribute tags. Before I am off to Africa again I'll download all campsite related raw data. I would hope that the classes and subclasses would be rendered differently and that I get all additional details from the raw list. I would also hope that special interest sites like iOverlander would show all details I am looking for. 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. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl Before I update the proposal ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 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 the opportunistic blessing and amenity use of a hotel/ hostel, etc. Why do we need to keep trekking? Isn't it a special case of unimproved? Summarized my preference is - Designated - Unimproved (although I like the word Basic better) - Non-designated - Wild_camp_site: separate namespace tag for unimproved without blessing ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 non-designated tag for his situation, I think you have the experience to say they exist. Non-designated seems a little odd (informal is a synonym) - but I liked your word opportunistic I really like cascading values, like the list I made earlier. Then the value list as I see it is: Designated Unimproved Opportunistic Informal Trekking Opportunistic- A designated camp site that is operated by an adjacent business when local demand for camping space occurs. Amenities offered are usually part of the permanent business, such as a motel. Particularly common in developing countries. I suggested trekking sites because my experience says that very remote camp sites in wilderness parks are nice - but shouldn't be given an icon similar to a formal camp site or even informal ones like a turnout, because of severe access restrictions. We don't want to trick anyone into thinking there is anything other than a good tent pitch (no car access, no amenities, etc), as the assumption of shelter, food, access or water in a remote environment (and it turns out there is nothing) could kill someone. If you feel they need to not be included now, or in another tag, then drop it. I want there to be a big separation between designated, informal, and trekking. Javbw On Mar 26, 2015, at 5:42 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: 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 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 the opportunistic blessing and amenity use of a hotel/ hostel, etc. Why do we need to keep trekking? Isn't it a special case of unimproved? Summarized my preference is Designated Unimproved (although I like the word Basic better) Non-designated Wild_camp_site: separate namespace tag for unimproved without blessing ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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 the opportunistic blessing and amenity use of a hotel/ hostel, etc. I agree Jan, these things exist in Australia too. But I have to ask, are they really non-designated ? I have used ones that sound pretty much what you describe. I'd think of them as having been designated by the land owner. Or at least loco parentis owner. In my category model, we are not describing anything about owner or business arrangements, we leave that to other tags. We describe only what is apparently there. So, if its got toilets and water available via the adjoining business, its 'standard'. If not, 'basic'. David Why do we need to keep trekking? Isn't it a special case of unimproved? Summarized my preference is Yes, I suspect 'trekking' is the odd one out here and might be better dealt with in a subsequent proposal. * Designated * Unimproved (although I like the word Basic better) * Non-designated * Wild_camp_site: separate namespace tag for unimproved without blessing I am uncomfortable with words like designated, unimproved - they indicate we know far too much of the history and legal status of the site. Lets just stick to what we can see there now. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 amongst overlanders with hotels offering this service. Availability and quality can change quickly, therefore I don't want to mix with regular campsites. If a hotel has a permanent campground with amenities next to the hotel building the run like a standard campsite it is not in the non-designated category. On Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 23:03 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: 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 the opportunistic blessing and amenity use of a hotel/ hostel, etc. I agree Jan, these things exist in Australia too. But I have to ask, are they really non-designated ? I have used ones that sound pretty much what you describe. I'd think of them as having been designated by the land owner. Or at least loco parentis owner. In my category model, we are not describing anything about owner or business arrangements, we leave that to other tags. We describe only what is apparently there. So, if its got toilets and water available via the adjoining business, its 'standard'. If not, 'basic'. David Why do we need to keep trekking? Isn't it a special case of unimproved? Summarized my preference is Yes, I suspect 'trekking' is the odd one out here and might be better dealt with in a subsequent proposal. * Designated * Unimproved (although I like the word Basic better) * Non-designated * Wild_camp_site: separate namespace tag for unimproved without blessing I am uncomfortable with words like designated, unimproved - they indicate we know far too much of the history and legal status of the site. Lets just stick to what we can see there now. 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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) is stable, publicly announced as campground; - Non-designated: permission to camp, policy and services may change overnight, not publicly announced as campground (no signs, no listings); - Wild: no permission to camp (but no prohibition either), sometimes a policy, situation may change overnight, not announced. Regards, Jan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 way extensive use a tag in OSM makes it 'official'. Under my category scheme, we don't use the word designated at all. We describe just what is apparently there. Perhaps an extra tag needs be developed to indicate its less formal basis but I am not sure of even that. Please look at the words again - David's model (camp_site=* ) - Basic = nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle. Standard = Basic + toilets and water Serviced = Standard + shower + power Fully_Serviced = Serviced + camp kitchen + Laundry Deluxe = Fully_Serviced + swimming pool/restaurant David On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 22:53 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: 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 amongst overlanders with hotels offering this service. Availability and quality can change quickly, therefore I don't want to mix with regular campsites. If a hotel has a permanent campground with amenities next to the hotel building the run like a standard campsite it is not in the non-designated category. On Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 23:03 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: 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 the opportunistic blessing and amenity use of a hotel/ hostel, etc. I agree Jan, these things exist in Australia too. But I have to ask, are they really non-designated ? I have used ones that sound pretty much what you describe. I'd think of them as having been designated by the land owner. Or at least loco parentis owner. In my category model, we are not describing anything about owner or business arrangements, we leave that to other tags. We describe only what is apparently there. So, if its got toilets and water available via the adjoining business, its 'standard'. If not, 'basic'. David Why do we need to keep trekking? Isn't it a special case of unimproved? Summarized my preference is Yes, I suspect 'trekking' is the odd one out here and might be better dealt with in a subsequent proposal. * Designated * Unimproved (although I like the word Basic better) * Non-designated * Wild_camp_site: separate namespace tag for unimproved without blessing I am uncomfortable with words like designated, unimproved - they indicate we know far too much of the history and legal status of the site. Lets just stick to what we can see there now. 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 between 1, 2 and 4. It should be one attribute key to distinguish between the 3 cases. Does standard/basic/non-designated cover what we look for? here are my comments to the 1,2,4 cases: definition in the proposal: 1. Standard campgrounds (camp_site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:camp_siteaction=editredlink=1 =standard http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:camp_site%3Dstandardaction=editredlink=1) - businesses or public bodies that provide guarded and staffed sites for camping with a at least drinking water, hot showers, toilets and facilities for dish washing and/or laundry. Usually more services such as electricity, laundry service, swimming pool, camping store, barbecue facilities etc. are provided. Operating the campground is a standalone and a fee is charged for the service; __ The value standard is OK by me, but I'd require far less features: 1. Standard campgrounds (camp_site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:camp_siteaction=editredlink=1 =standard http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:camp_site%3Dstandardaction=editredlink=1) - businesses or public bodies that provide sometimes guarded and TYPICALLY staffed sites for camping with a at least drinking water, showers, toilets and facilities for dish washing and/or laundry. Usually more services such as electricity, hot showers, laundry service, swimming pool, camping store, barbecue facilities etc. are provided. Normally a fee is charged for the service; (Made the hot showers, guards, staff optional, remove the standalone requirement) _ 2. -- I'd call them non-commercial rather than designated. This should be easier to understand. _ 4. -- Not sure I'd distinguish them from 1, what are the reasons to make this a new category? 5+6 -- new main tag (see also below) I don't have a strong opinion about 6. In the earlier discussion people felt it is important that is is mapped in some way. Yes, I don't object to mapping this at all, I object that these should be tourism=camp_site, but I admit I am not sure what actually is there, I just interpreted the description in the wiki. If these are relatively small, delimited areas with any kind of service or presence on the ground, the tourism=camp_site tag might actually OK. If instead these are bigger parts of the national park with no stuff like toilets, water, fire place, shelter, staff, a bench, or whatsoever, then I'd rather tag them the same as wild camping spots, or with yet another tag. ___ Yet another thing that comes to my mind: what about permanent camping (Dauercamping in German). These are mostly areas inside a standard camping site that are rent for the whole year and people typically have installed their own stuff like paving, lamp posts, satellite dishes, sometimes even fences and hedges. Sometimes the whole site might be reserved to this kind of camping (basically it is a kind of summer cottage, where you bring your own cottage, used either by people who cannot afford a real summer cottage or who like the setting of the spot, like a wood aside a lake, where you wouldn't receive a regular building permission in some countries). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 form, then looks up an appropriate symbol. amenity=camp_ground area=yes + amenity=sanitary_dump_station amenity=drinking_water = amenity=camp_ground sanitary_dump_station=yes drinking_water=yes --- The rendering can map anything with an operator or fee differently from just a bare tag. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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. Because camp sites will defy categorization. No, sorry, I don't think that works either ! Looking at a typical commercial book that describes camp sites, you expect to see a list, maybe a long one, things like toilets, water, showers, laundary, BBQ, fire place and so one. Many of these are already in amenity=*. But its silly to do on one node or area - tourism=camp_site name=Happy Campers Rest amenity=bbq amenity=fireplace amenity=bench amenity=waste_disposal So, I'd need to map each as an individual node. A search of the data will not necessarily associate the BBQ with Happy Campers Rest Caravan Park. Thats just as silly. Someone making a map wants to see one object with these attributes so they can decide what to render and how to render it. tourism=camp_site:amenity=bbq;fireplace;drinking_water;waste_disposal;toilets;showers;bench name=Happy Camper Rest Ugly but works in terms of associating the data in a meaningful way. I think we still need categories in some form so that renders have a hint of what they should do. David But definitely add official there, or a least operator. I want to know in advance if the tent symbol on the map represents a place I can comfortably stay without getting woken up at 5am by a farmer with a shotgun * -Bryce * Been there, done that. ** Also add stay_limit=7 nights, internet_access=wlan, camp_host=no, network=, campfire_permitted=season, ranger_programs, website. ___ 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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 fee. They look almost exactly like a state (public) campground camp in the US. But they are private. the fee should just be the standard fee= tag But you would not oppose the proposal because a particular category does not exist where you live/travel ? Here in Australia (and other parts of the world) there really is a different type of camp ground. Its typically provided by local council or a local community (wanting to attract visitors). It will have no fee, request a donation or a nominal fee of a few dollars. Its nothing like the camp grounds you are thinking about and needs to be described differently. Pitches are not defined, you park where you like and therefore usually with plenty of space between neighbours. Few or no services, no staff. Arguably more suited to caravans or motor homes than tents. There is a monthly magazines devoted to the subject. I have a book with 3700 listings. While it may be beyond some list member's experience, it exists ! 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 amenity=showers fee=yes Yes. Because camp sites will defy categorization. No, sorry, I don't think that works either ! Looking at a typical commercial book that describes camp sites, you expect to see a list, maybe a long one, things like toilets, water, showers, laundary, BBQ, fire place and so one. Many of these are already in amenity=*. But its silly to do on one node or area - tourism=camp_site name=Happy Campers Rest amenity=bbq amenity=fireplace amenity=bench amenity=waste_disposal So, I'd need to map each as an individual node. A search of the data will not necessarily associate the BBQ with Happy Campers Rest Caravan Park. Thats just as silly. Someone making a map wants to see one object with these attributes so they can decide what to render and how to render it. No, not a decision for the render but information for the end user .. the most important pero=son is the end user! 'Customers' first! :-) The map user wants to search for the closest camp sites and then select for the features they want. On one node/area you would have tourism=camp_site name=Happy Campers Rest fee=yes/no/number The additional required data would be the level of services/facilities available. At least that is my view. I'd think that the services/features would be like the hotel star rating system - the more stars the better? The Germans use Tourist (*), Standard (**), Comfort (***), First Class () and Luxury (*) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_rating Humm is there a camp site rating system too? The Americans have some http://camping.about.com/cs/campgroundreviews/a/ratingsystems.htm --- For OSM camp_sites? These words would get away from 'official', 'designated' ... and convey some idea? None(*), Basic (**), Comfort (***), First Class (), Luxury(*) ? Or maybe the 'None' gets no stars? None( ), Basic (*), Standard (**), Comfort (***), First Class (), Luxury(*) ? None= nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle. Basic = None + a toilet Standard = Basic + water Comfort = Standard + shower First Class = Comfort + cloths washing (+ power?) Luxury =Comfort + camp kitchen/swimming pool/restaurant -- There is a similar proposal for hotels http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Awards_and_ratings I think it failed due to an expectation that the data needs to be upto date.. and that won't be done on the OSM .. the truth is that the OSM is upto date .. look how fast changes are made to roads when they change. I expect the same for other features, where outdated data is found mappers update it. Get off your unrealistic expectations of instantaneous correct data only being within OSM! Errors occur, data does get out of date. But it gets 'fixed' fairly quickly. Denying data entry that indicates what the end users want undermines the usefullness of OSM. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 the closest camp sites and then select for the features they want. Agreed, whole heartedly ! None= nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle. Basic = None + a toilet Standard = Basic + water Comfort = Standard + shower First Class = Comfort + cloths washing (+ power?) Luxury =Comfort + camp kitchen/swimming pool/restaurant And a camp ground that has a pool but no cloths washing facility ? Is the water drinkable ? BBQ, fire places, defined 'pitches', metered/unmetered power, disabled toilets, shade, grass, cooking facilities, rec room, launching ramp, fish cleaning facilities, internet access, pets allowed/not, child/dog minding capability, credit card facilities . Need a category system, for sure, but need a lot of extra data not implied by the category. --- There is a similar proposal for hotels http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Awards_and_ratings I think the range, the size of the matrix, is smaller for hotels. Get off your unrealistic expectations of instantaneous correct data Yeah, agree, we are mapping a real world ! Its analogue and it changes. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 will find amenities. What amenities? Don’t care. tag them on it (showers, et) Unimproved is a designated sites with minimal to no amenities. a road, a flat spot, and maybe a fire ring or a water tap. no stores, no spaces, no support. This is a place where people can park a car and pitch a tent. But you have some kind of “approval” to be there - the blessing of someone - the owner, the town, something. Informal is unimproved, but without the explicit blessing of a specific body. A camp near a track in the desert. A good spot on a access road on a forest. A spot near town that is friendly to passers-by - but there’s no official blessing from the town or land management agency, beyond not prohibiting camping outright. Trekking - An informal camp site that is in the middle of nowhere, with severe assess limitations. This seems *much* more flexible to me. On Mar 25, 2015, at 6:37 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: But you would not oppose the proposal because a particular category does not exist where you live/travel ? Here in Australia (and other parts of the world) there really is a different type of camp ground. Its typically provided by local council or a local community (wanting to attract visitors). I dont’ have a problem with it tagged as a camp site, because it has been chosen *as a camp site*, right? just put a fee= tag on it. It may not have designated spaces or a water tap, but it is a designated camping area. It is an unimproved camp site. It is bare of amenities. but it is legally blessed (the owner/operator wants campers to show up), so it is chosen to be a camp site. I like the idea of this proposal, I just think the def’s are a little off - they need to really be describing the type of campground as a whole, and leave other details to established tags - like fees, water, showers, caravans allowed, etc to additional tags - unless it describes the complete lack of any of them (designated vs unimproved). Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 data! The map user wants to search for the closest camp sites and then select for the features they want. Agreed, whole heartedly ! None= nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle. Basic = None + a toilet Standard = Basic + water Comfort = Standard + shower First Class = Comfort + cloths washing (+ power?) Luxury =Comfort + camp kitchen/swimming pool/restaurant Is the water drinkable ? Yes. ... forgot to stipulate that. BBQ, fire places, defined 'pitches', metered/unmetered power, disabled toilets, shade, grass, cooking facilities, rec room, launching ramp, fish cleaning facilities, internet access, pets allowed/not, child/dog minding capability, credit card facilities . Distractions form the major features that I'd use to separate them. . Need a category system, for sure, but need a lot of extra data not implied by the category. The 'extra data' can be tagged separately? This give a clear boundary between the class system. And still enables the other things to be tagged. Fee payment may cover credit cards, shade by marking tree/s on the map, disabled toilets as a sub tag to toilets power is covered by a tag pitches yet to be defined .. but a draft proposal exists, internet .. has a tag, \ So quite a few things already covered by tags. What I think is needed here is a simple system to separate the levels .. readily identified and easy to implement. The other things are, as I said, distractions. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 because OSM shows a possible place to camp does not necessarily mean that lots of people will go there, especially if the place is hard to access (e.g. no access by car, long hike to get there). And just because there is a tag does not mean you have to add every beautiful secret camping spot you know about into OSM. Cheers, Martni ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
In Africa we have been desperately looking for such places. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 sanitary_dump_station=yes amenity=showers fee=yes Yes. Because camp sites will defy categorization. But definitely add official there, or a least operator. I want to know in advance if the tent symbol on the map represents a place I can comfortably stay without getting woken up at 5am by a farmer with a shotgun * -Bryce * Been there, done that. ** Also add stay_limit=7 nights, internet_access=wlan, camp_host=no, network=, campfire_permitted=season, ranger_programs, website. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 beyond these hours. Guarded depends on the region: in Europe usually not, in Africa definitely yes. Standard Designated Trekking Informal Fee Significant No/Nominal No/Nominal No Toilets Yes Possibly No No Showers Yes, usually hot No No No Power Usually Rarely No No Water Yes Sometimes Maybe No Washing Usually Rarely No No Staff Yes Rarely No No Pitches Yes/No Rarely No No Official Yes Yes Usually No Access Restricted hours 24/7 24/7 24/7 *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; designated to be a campground. To base an entire category on this term is misleading IMO.* I see your point, but do we have a better phrase? Basic? Overnight? *@Jan - yes, I suppose the camping areas I'm talking about could be category #2 if you get rid of the adjective nominal for the fee. Just say they may be free or charge a fee because these days camping fees are anything but nominal, at least in my opinion.* OK *I say get rid of #6 entirely. Tagging an entire state as an area where camping is permitted, like Alaska, is problematical at best.* OK *I am happy with camp_site=informal (unlike Martin), pretty much says what it is supposed to say. I expect it would be rendered differently or not at all in most cases. We could make that clearer in the text ?* I can see Martin's point. It is like the fuel discussion: you don't want to mix the regular filling stations and the drums. *And just live with it like that ? I really like the category approach but worry that we are not going to make it work. What would need to happen is to improve the documentation for the tourism=camp_site and, then, maybe fill in a few missing tags. That interestingly, is where we were some months ago and saw the spin out of sanitary_dump_station= and waste= proposals.* In any case I want to keep the separation between designated (in the broader sense), non designated (not much discussed here, but for me the most important reason to start the topic) and informal. We could decide to recombine the current *Standard*, *Designated *and *Trekking.* Indeed we could leave the other details to attributes. Regards, Jan Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 then it's encouraging trespass. First rule of Wild Camping is you don't talk about Wild Camping, well at least don't publish it on the Internet! If the only definition of such a camp site is that you can put a tent on it then every few metres will get mapped. You can't map the absence of something. Stick to defining organised campsites, do not try to bring order to something that by it's very nature is disk-organised. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Jan van Bekkum Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2015 07:39 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools, Dave Swarthout 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 attribute tags Non-designed - as proposed New main tag tourism=wild_camp_site___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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; designated to be a campground. To base an entire category on this term is misleading IMO. +1 yea, designated means that the area is chosen to be for camping. “This is a campsite” “This area is used for camping” The problem is that Camps meant for RVs (motorhomes) and camps made for caravan (trailers?) and car camping (where the tent goes up next to the car) are separated by the “standard” and “designated” tags. Also - “standard” campsites are stand-alone facilities? “Designated” are camping facilities inside a larger park? I guess i see where the designated comes from now - this area is designated for camping, but it is not obvious. But his is causing the confusion, as depending on your experience, you may feel that either are “standard” campgrounds or “designated” ones - or both! but the tag definitions don’t match the usage. In my experience, “standard campgrounds” are quite rare - esp. with “stores” (beyond a permit office or toll taker) and “pools” and “laundry service” - that sounds like a place where you park an motorhome - not a pitch a tent, but “RV camping” is part of camping and trekking - so there needs to be hard definitions between them. A place for RVs, a place for auto camping, a place for tent camping, and informal places where it’s not designated but works well, and trekking - a good spot in a vast wilderness area. Perhaps using “”stand-alone” “camping-area” or “RV camp / Caravan camp / Auto camp / Tent camping / informal / trekking” to split by vehicle I’m not sure of how to define it, but standard vs designated is confusing in both name and the definitions provided. Javbw 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 fee. They look almost exactly like a state (public) campground camp in the US. But they are private. the fee should just be the standard fee= tag___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 attribute tags - Non-designed - as proposed - New main tag tourism=wild_camp_site ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 as if they used it to tag parts of camping sites rather than using this to specify a detailed subtypology, have a look at taginfo here: http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/camp_site . There are roughly 1,8K uses as of now, which is not very much but maybe not so few that we can completely ignore it. IMHO from a semantic point of view the tags in use do not make much sense, for example a reception can occur everywhere and it seems like a bad idea to have different tags according to which feature it provides. It seems logical for me to use the tag camp_site=* to specify subtypes of camp_sites, but it could also be camp_site_type if we wanted to avoid a conflict. Some values are documented here in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Camp_site 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. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 money in the receptacle and in return get a receipt to show the authorities. .There is usually a ranger station nearby that might send a car out to patrol the campground, usually to check the date on your reservation, but other than that they are almost invisible. Hot showers are a luxury and a few camp_sites have them, most do not. I dunno how to bridge this gap in our perceptions of these campgrounds. Rather than stating these sorts of things as a minimum requirement, let them be mentioned as optional On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: 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 (definition and examples). Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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.e. signposted/official), using it here differently seems odd. Another issue: 5. Informal camping (camp_site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:camp_siteaction=editredlink=1 =informal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:camp_site%3Dinformalaction=editredlink=1) - locations that are not set up to offer camping, but are more suitable for camping than other places in the neighbourhood and therefore valuable to know. -- I think this should get another main tag, basically there is not camp site, there is only a spot that is suitable to camp from the point of view of the mapper. This should not be confusable with official camp sites. 6. Areas for example in National Parks where camping is permitted camp_site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:camp_siteaction=editredlink=1 =permitted_area http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:camp_site%3Dpermitted_areaaction=editredlink=1. -- see 5, these are not camp sites Also I see a lot of overlap, because different aspects of the same thing are packed into the same key: 1. commercial or not for profit 2. trekking or motorized campers 3. formal or informal places My suggestion would be to have different subkeys for 1 and 2 and to have different main keys (tourism=camp_site and new key) for 3. The part 2 could also be further distinguished (types of vehicle) Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 (definition and examples). Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
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 fee=no and so on. And just live with it like that ? I really like the category approach but worry that we are not going to make it work. What would need to happen is to improve the documentation for the tourism=camp_site and, then, maybe fill in a few missing tags. That interestingly, is where we were some months ago and saw the spin out of sanitary_dump_station= and waste= proposals. David On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 07:43 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote: Many Alaskan campgrounds do have showers Wow, I have a picture of camping in Alaska, cold ! Martin says: 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. Yes, I agree with Martin. But silly to put dollar amounts in. fee=nominal; fee=yes; fee=no; fee=donation 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; designated to be a campground. To base an entire category on this term is misleading IMO. This spot is designated as a camping spot, now look at the other tags to tell you what sort of camp it is. Maybe its fee for service, maybe its got toilets and showers. Hmm, I'm arguing to let the other tags tell the story, not what I want to do. @Jan - yes, I suppose the camping areas I'm talking about could be category #2 if you get rid of the adjective nominal for the fee. Just say they may be free or charge a fee because these days camping fees are anything but nominal, at least in my opinion. Here, we may commonly pay between $25 and $45 a night for a powered site expecting to find toilets and hot showers available. The ones I consider 'nominal' will be charging anything from a coin donation up to, maybe, $10 a night. Not much overlap there. I say get rid of #6 entirely. Tagging an entire state as an area where camping is permitted, like Alaska, is problematical at best. Yes, agree. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 supervisor calls in from time to time. But issue here is that there is someone, possibly off site, possibly not around when you need them. But they exist. Hot showers are a luxury and a few camp_sites have them, most do not. Gee, you pay a 'significant' fee and don't get hot showers ? But you do get electricity ? Rather than stating these sorts of things as a minimum requirement, let them be mentioned as optional Yep. Martin is unhappy with the word designated. I don't think its great but cannot suggest another. Here we say free camps but use the word free as in free speech, not free beer and it causes a lot of confusion. I am happy with camp_site=informal (unlike Martin), pretty much says what it is supposed to say. I expect it would be rendered differently or not at all in most cases. We could make that clearer in the text ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
