> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Brad Neuhauser <brad.neuhau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 on addr:unit or ref over addr:housenumber. I think ref makes more sense > than addr:unit on remote/isolated pitches (ie hike-in sites, not drive-in). > > In addition, I've seen cases where individual pitches are named instead of > numbered. It's not mentioned, but to clarify, I'm assuming that would just > use "name”
Sounds like there is a possibility that osm-carto might start showing some information about individual pitches, so maybe we can settle on something. In the U.S. I see circumstances where addr:unit is the best fit: Mobile home parks and commercial campgrounds like KOA and some county and state park campgrounds that have a street address and the sites/spaces/pitches within are numbered much as apartment units are numbered. But I also see circumstances where addr:unit, implying there are other valid address tags, is a bad fit: Most public campgrounds in US Forests, US Parks and, at least in California, state parks don’t have a verifiable street address. And backcountry (hike or walk-in) campsites sometimes have numbered pitches but definitely don’t have a street address. For these I think ref=* would be the best fit. Perhaps this is a case where no one identification standard makes sense: I suggest that pitches be tagged with ref=<number/name> but that in those cases where a valid street address exists for the entire campground, the pitches also be tagged with addr:unit=<number/name>. There would be duplicate information but a campground specific renderer could rely on there being a ref=<identifier> while a more general purpose renderer that is also used for apartments and other commercial building display and navigation would have addr:unit=<identifier> to work with where it makes sense. > On Apr 29, 2015, at 5:51 PM, Bryce Nesbitt <bry...@obviously.com> wrote: > > Which uses newly invited attributes of "water" and "table". I think it > better not to reinvent that wheel, and use instead: > > camp_site=pitch > camp_site:drinking_water=no > camp_site:picnic_table=yes > > Or with a more proper namespace: > > camp_site=pitch > pitch:drinking_water=no > pitch:picnic_table=yes The more I think about it, the more I like this example “with a more proper namespace”. Procedurally, how to go forward? Should this be a new proposal page or an edit of the old subsection of the old camp_site extended features proposal? Cheers, Tod
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
