I was trying to do as Richard suggested, that is, trim the other replies
off the message. Screwed that up.
It's not the definition I object to, it's the use of the term commercial.
Regardless of the quacking like a duck comparison, the national, state, and
forest service campgrounds are simply not commercial by American standards.
That's why I was trying to redefine designated to make it possible to
include our state and national park camp_sites in that category, or any
category. I can practically guarantee that nobody in the United States will
tag a camp_site inside of a national park as commercial. If I'm left with
the definitions the way they are now, I'll simply tag them as
tourism=camp_site and be done with it. Other amenities can be added to
nodes or buildings as appropriate.
Let's come up with a better term for the full-featured ("flash") sites
we're talking about. This recent modification is good but still needs work,
IMO
1. Commercial campgrounds: large sites for tents, caravans and RV's,
offering toilets, showers, internet, laundry and dish washing facilities, a
shop, a swimming pool, waste stations, internet, etc. They are often
crowded, usually have defined pitches and someone is in charge. Commercial
campgrounds are found in countries with a camping holiday culture like
North America, Western Europe, South Africa and Australia. They can be run
by private parties, but also by public bodies on a commercial basis like
the campgrounds in South African National Parks;
How about full_service, full_featured, comprehensive? I don't like any of
these and only offer them as food for thought. But I cannot get on board
with commercial.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 4:37 PM, David Bannon <dban...@internode.on.net>
wrote:
> Dave S, think you missed the list....
>
> On Sun, 2015-03-22 at 09:19 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > Okay then, Your idea is to define the campgrounds inside of national
> > and state parks as commercial ones?
>
> Well, its more a case of are you paying to camp there ? And are you
> being provided with extensive services or not ?
>
> Here in Aus, camp grounds in national parks are generally more basic,
> they are cheap, minimal facilities. But some, at specific places, are
> more like commercial ones. So, I'd call the flash ones commercial, even
> though they are operated by Parks.
> >
> >
> > I have no problem with that other than I usually don't consider
> > government run operations of any type, including campgrounds, as
> > "commercial".
>
> If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, I reckon its a duck !
>
> > Commercial implies a business run for profit, not a governmental
> > administered operation. All I'm looking for is a category into which
> > the majority of the campgrounds in the United States will fit. If you
> > want to lump them together then the definition of commercial needs to
> > change.
>
> Yes, maybe its a case that the name is wrong. Not sure of a better name.
> When you think about it, the camp ground it self (in those flash
> National Parks) are in fact run for profit, the profit goes back to help
> running the park, but its still run on a fee for service basis.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
