On 27/03/2015 6:31 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
This is a spinoff of a discussion that was started in the mail trail
about the proposal for camp_site=* that is currently open for
comments. I would like to limit this discussion to facilities for the
entire campground, not individual pitches. Similar questions will
apply to other situations than campsites.
Certain amenities that are offered with campgrounds have their own
namespace key. Examples are restaurant, bar, shop, shower. Others like
toilets and internet can be attributes under tourism=camp_site.
Let's take as an example a campsite with restaurant and shower.
For tagging a restaurant plus showers that belong to a campground
different approaches can be chosen:
1. The node or area tourism=camp_site gets one attribute
amenity=restaurant;showers.
Advantage: (1) evident that shower and restaurant belong to
campground, (2) no new tag definitions needed
Disadvantages: (1) additional attributes for individual amenities
(like opening_hours=* not possible, (2) difficult to render
2. New attributes are created such as restaurant=yes, showers=hot,
restaurant:opening_hours=*
Advantage: (1) evident that shower and restaurant belong to
campground, (2) attributes for individual amenities possible
Disadvantages: (1) duplication of tag definitions for the same
object (amenity=shower and shower=hot), (2) difficult to render
3. Separate nodes for campground and amenities
Advantages: (1) no new tag definitions needed, (2) attributes per
amenity straightforward, (3) no rendering issues
Disadvantages: (1) not evident that campground and amenities
belong together, (2) placing of nodes incorrect if layout of
camping area is not known
4. Separate nodes for campground and amenities connected in a site
relation
Advantages: (1) no new tag definitions needed, (2) attributes per
amenity straightforward, (3) no rendering issues, (4) evident that
campground and amenities belong together, (5) acceptable rendering
even if relation isn't properly handled by rendering software
Disadvantages: (1) placing of nodes incorrect if layout of camping
area is not known, (2) use of relations felt to be difficult by
some mappers.
All in all I personally prefer option 4.
For me .. Number 4.
----------------------------
The incorrect layout of nodes within the area;
conveys the information that they exist and
are not too much trouble to correct when that data becomes available.
In fact it makes it easier for the correction - just move the node.
Option 4 is easy, simple, effective and adds no new stuff to OSM. 'Just'
needs documentation for camp_sites?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
