sumary : imho, this thread is trying to solve all issues in one shoot, and this nearly always fail. it seems better to cut this into several parts from the simplest to the most complicated (retag camp_site=* objects that have already a more suitable tags such as toilets, depreciated one by one the most problematic values of camp_site) in order to clarify the final solution. that's what I proposed on the french-speaking list, no one is against it, no public reaction, but taginfo shows that there are people working to improve the situation
Le 22.05.19 à 03:26, Tod Fitch a écrit : > If the tourism=camp_site has only one place to camp: > tourism=camp_site > camp_site=camp_pitch > camp_pitch:type=tent > camp_pitch:fire=ring that doesn't solve the double (hidjack) meaning of camp_site and to avoid unneeded namespace and use as often existing tags, I prefer somethink like : tourism=camp_site camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe camp_pitch:count=1 or camp_pitch=1 tents=yes/only fireplace=yes/ring > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:camp_pitch this propal over-use the namespace for ex drinking_water=yes/no is enought, no namespace needed Le 22.05.19 à 06:09, Tod Fitch a écrit : > a site with only one place for tent/caravan > list the detailed characteristics (table, fire ring, etc.). I don't understand the issue. just add the detailed characteristics to tourism=camp_site like it's already done for a lot of them. and add camp_pitch:count=1 or camp_pitch=1 Le 22.05.19 à 06:09, Tod Fitch a écrit : > What we’d call a “campground” is apparently called a “campsite” in > British English and somehow turned into “camp site” in OSM. And what > we’d call an individual place within a campground would be “camp site” > but is apparently a “pitch” in BE. it's probably a good idea to inform about the risk of confusion on the wiki > camp_site=pitch [5] was not well accepted by people on these mailing lists because “pitch” is more associated with fields for sports. I have review 100+ of them yesterday, I have found 2 usecases : - some are a camp_pitch in camp_site that have several camp_pitch". Those can be fixed with tourism=camp_pitch (not because I like this, but because fixing one issue (avoid conflit with tourism=camp_site + camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe) is better than fixing none of them. camp_pitch=yes is also a tmp fix due you dislike tourism=camp_pitch, or part=camp_pitch - some are a "part" of camp_site grouped because of a common caracts like a camp_site tents=yes caravans=yes with a part for tents=yes and a part for caravans=yes all tag/value currently in use are imho wrong. I have fixed those with tourism=camp_pitch the existing least bad solution we currently have in use. camp_pitch=many or part=yes may also be a tmp fix to find those later. that said, the problem of camp_pitch is general, values are drowned with item that have other more suitable tags. somes examples found : camp_site=entrance on a node of the outer -> entrance=yes camp_site=toilets -> amenity=toilets (sometime with access=customers) camp_site=shower -> amenity=shower (sometime with access=customers) camp_site=caravan -> caravans=yes/designated > Proposed for a pitch within a campsite: camp_site:part=camp_pitch I agree with that, but some find it too long. so maybe it's better to cut issues in 3 : - fix camp_site= value when a better tag exist (toilets, shower, entrance, ...) - move camp_site=pitch camp_site=camp_pitch out of camp_site=* to solve the double meaning of this tag (a camp_site with one-only camp_pitch <> a camp_pitch in a camp_site with severals camp_pitch). we can tmp use tourism=camp_pitch or camp_pitch=yes or whatever to move out the approved tourism=camp_site camp_site=* tag linking. - find what the best schema could be for : a camp_pitch in a whole camp, a part of a whole camp used to add a subtag for this part Le 22.05.19 à 10:02, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > the sum of all building:parts make up the whole building you may add a part just to describe that a caract of a part that the usecase I have found by looking at the current usage Le 22.05.19 à 10:02, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > If for some reason we don’t want to use the tourism key for these, > the tag could still be much more simple, e.g. camping=pitch so camping 'll become a main tag with only one value ? hum and that doesn't solve how to tag a part that isn't a camp_pitch or you also add camping=part ? that's not so far from part=yes inside a camping and imho it won't take long to see camping=site =toilets and so on Le 23.05.19 à 00:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit : > then for each site so no main tag/value at all ? that avoid any bad tag/value :) but it is a radical change to have objects that only have subtags that exist elsewhere and no main tag describing what the object. practical problem: counting or render or finding those objects becomes very complicated since there is no longer any specific tag _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
