I'm afraid that using camp_site=camp_pitch as a subtag on tourism=camp_site features, and using "tourism=pitch" for separate tagging would combine the same disadvantages as using camp_site=camp_pitch as an independent feature, plus the disadvantages of adopting a new tag under the tourism key.
Your suggestion would require redefining "camp_site=camp_pitch" to be a subkey of "tourism=camp_site" even though it is mainly used by itself to map individual pitches. Then we would need to retag all of the other "camp_site=camp_pitch" objects - but not necessarily the ones that are also tagged with tourism=camp_site. This would be confusing and still would require a large amount of retagging of features that were used by dozens of mappers over the past few years. And if "tourism=camp_pitch" were the new approved tag, it could still be accidentally used instead of "tourism=camp_site" for individual features (I almost mixed that up just while typing this). I still think it's easiest for us to approve the fairly popular tag "camp_site=camp_pitch", which is already supported by some editors, since the alternatives also have some disadvantages. Joseph On 4/24/19, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 23. Apr 2019, at 15:00, Joseph Eisenberg <[email protected]> >> What do you mean by "camp_pitch as a subtype of camp site"? Are you >> proposing something like this: Proposed_features/Key:camp_pitch > > no, I was referring to key camp_site=* as key for subtypes of camp sites. > “camp_pitch” could be seen as one of the subtypes of camp sites (a site > consisting of one pitch) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
