I think “camp_site:part=camp_pitch” is too long. Also, remember that the existing tag is used for pitches within campgrounds and caravan sites.
And, the British English term is “campsite”, without a space. The shortest option with a new key would be “camp=pitch”. But tourism=camp_pitch has the advantage of being in use, and it uses an existing feature key. I don’t feel enthusiastic about creating a 4th competing tagging standard to go along with camp_site=pitch, camp_site=camp_pitch and tourism=camp_pitch On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 2:05 AM marc marc <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 20.05.19 à 17:36, Jan S a écrit : > > I find camp_site:part=* somewhat complicated, too. Also, it wouldn't be > > consistent with the use of camp_site=* to describe the type of camping > > site, either. > > tourism=camp_site + camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe > > and if you cut the site in several parts, > camp_site:part=(camp_)pitch to describe each part > > > I'd prefer tourism=camp_pitch. This also has the advantage that this key > > can be used for isolated camping pitches that are not part of a proper > > camping ground. > > I find that it is precisely a defect. a camp_pitch does not define > a basic camp_site limited to a single pitch (use tourism=camp_site + > camp_site=basic for this, no need to add a part if the part=the whole > camp_site). > > camp_pitch:part=* describes a part of a camp_site like building:part=* > doesn't descript a building with one-part only. > so a part always need to be in a camp_site like a building part > need to be inside a building. > > but you can have a site with only one pitch and a deluxe service > or have a site with a lot of pitch but basic service, > there is no link between the number and quality > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
