Apply 3 in case all amenities fall in 1 area. Apply 4 in case they are in separate areas.
Use 1 only in a first iteration when no more details are known. don't like 2 at all :-) I think camp sites are no different that large factories, schools, universities etc. in this respect. regards m On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Jan van Bekkum <[email protected]> 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. > > Opinions? > > Regards, > > Jan van Bekkum > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
