Greetings all. I think toilets and presence of drinking water should be separate pieces of information easily obvious to any user. While all campsites with drinking water will have toilets, the reverse is often not true in NSW. I was at one last weekend - fairly large and popular ( room for 30 or 40 tents and vans), within 2 hours drive from sydney, and it had no water except for unreliable tank water. ( plenty last weekend lol).
http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/Dharug-National-Park/Mill-Creek-campground/camping This information is of interest to cycle tourists particularly, who need to manage water supplies quite carefully. It is depressing to get to the campsite only to realise you have to cycle another 10ks to get water. So I would suggest the second tier be basic plus toilets without an assumption about water. I do realise cycle tourists are only a small user group and will probably use other more detailed resources though. Cheers Adrian Sent from my iPhone > On 3 May 2015, at 10:02 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: camp sites (Ian Sergeant) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 17:43:11 +1000 > From: Ian Sergeant <[email protected]> > To: Warin <[email protected]> > Cc: OSM - Talk-au <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] camp sites > Message-ID: > <CALDa4Y+PKFmM7V+gZDb_aCxgwgLYiUCs24NDcGpTYsL=fey...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On 3 May 2015 at 15:27, Warin <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Whatever way it is cut there is a 'responsiblity', and I'd rather see the >> 'rules' and have the mapper make the choice from local knowledge rather >> than pass it to some remote person who can only judge it from a yes/no >> answer. > > I'm in also in favour of subjective decisions, when we need a subjective > decision, to be made close to the source. > > However, there are some tags that simply aim to group objective facts by > applying a ruleset to them. From the description this looks like one of > those cases. I look to see what amenity a campsite has, look up the > proposal, and decide on a category to assign it to. I can choose to list > the amenities too if I want. > > People might misinterpret the ruleset, and meanwhile, we are losing hard > data about the amenities. > > Is there supposed to be a subjective step that I'm missing? That is you > look at all the amenity, and make a judgement call on the category? > > Ian. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20150503/5e6bbae4/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 95, Issue 3 > ************************************** _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
