Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 23, 2015, at 8:40 PM, David Bannon <dban...@internode.on.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 15:16 +0900, johnw wrote: >> >> That’s why I thought " informal yet legal spots" would be good wording >> to cover this, and maybe link over to the camp_type proposal here - >> because with the wording for basic, the first thing I thought about >> was the legality or designation of the spot, thinking it would >> influence the camp_site= level - when it fact it is all inside the >> camp_type proposal. > You will have to help me here John, I don't quite see what you are > trying to achieve. Here in AU it is, sort of, legal to camp anywhere > that is not private property and not declared "no camping". > > I see camp_site= used only where there is some substantial legal basis, > (where that is unclear, its camp_type=). > > * In countries/places where the default is to allow camping, no sign or > official endorsement is needed, just lack of a sign saying "no > camping". > * In other countries/places, where camping is not allowed unless its so > stated, we'd need to see that statement. > > So, the term, 'legal' does have a slightly different meaning here > depending on where you are. But if we try and define it too tightly, we > may well end up excluding some local variation. Not sure thats a good > idea. > > Would it work better if we added a small block that talks about just > that, how 'legal' has that slightly different meaning ? That block would > be a good place to say camp_type might be a better tag when the legal > status is unclear or undefined ? > > David > Basic+non_designated would be a common tag set for small road or track-side camping spots - but often camping at them can be trespassing or not allowed, which varies from country to country. The local variation is in the "legal"part I wanted to impress upon people. Some countries have huge areas considered always open for camping. In the U.S. There are no such rules. Even on "public" land - it might be managed wilderness, a national park or a state park, and all have different uses on where camping is and isn't allowed, and informal camps by the roadside are often trespassing or doing environmental damage that the park rangers try to stop. "Camp in marked places only" is often noted. There are a lot of illegal informal camp sites in the U.S. They would be informal yet legal in your country. The people using them know they are trespassing or not allowed to be there, but they do so anyways. This is very true in Japan, and if you read blogs about Trekkers or road bikers, they often camp illegally on private property - they act in a nice manner, yet it is illegal to do so. I don't want people to map known illegal camp sites or places they just happened to spend the night and think are nice but are on a farmers private property just to complete the map, as "map the ground truth" means mapping basic+non-designated camps if there was no mention of legality. People mapping in Sweden may not have to worry, but people in Japan would have to be very careful. Javbw. > >> I’m sure this will come up with other taggers as well. >> >> >> I think camp_type=non_designated + camp_site=basic will be used >> together quite frequently, so reminding people of that is pretty >> important - it lets voters know why these two proposals go together >> well. >> >> >> 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
