http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches
+1 This seems to allow the tagging of each individual spot. Wonderful. Should allow communication of this information to potential campers. Very nice, go OSM! -- Alex On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Tod Fitch <[email protected]> wrote: > Based on my reading of the OSM wiki pages for tourism=camp_site and > tourism=caravan_site, I think the typical USFS and US NPS campgrounds > should be tagged tourism=camp_site. > > On the camp_site page we have " A campsite or campground is an area, > usually divided into a number of pitches, where people can camp overnight > using tents or camper vans or caravans." and later under links > "tourism=caravan_site for caravan dedicated spaces". Implying that > caravan_site is particularly tailored to RVs, more than just a camp_site. > > And on the caravan_site description, the introductory paragraph includes > things like power, water supply, waste hookups, etc. which I don't believe > are very common, at least in the western US, for USFS or NPS campgrounds. > > If you are getting into details, like group camp sites versus non-group > sites and the amenities available at each, then you might look at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches > > Slightly extended from that but using the same basic schema it could > include equestrian based amenities. > > -Tod > > > > On Sep 22, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Thomas Colson wrote: > > > It has been brought to my attention that our method of tagging > campgrounds runs afoul of OSM best practices: > > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17949565 > > > > Which begs the question: what is the best way to tag a campground that > serves multiple groups? > > > > Most NPS Front Country campgrounds, and Forest Service as well, provide > for “car-camping” as well as RV Sites. Some also include group sites (10 or > more people not in an RV). > > > > We have been tagging them as such: > > > > tourism = camp_site;caravan_site > > > > Options include > > > > tourism = camp_site > > comments = also_caravan_site > > > > but this will result in a very vocal and vigorous response from the RV > crowd as to why we’re not using: > > > > tourism = caravan_site > > comments = also_camp_site > > > > Another option is to use two nodes, very near each other, one for each > camping “activity”. Most campgrounds are divided into tent sites and RV > sites, but in MHO this is not the best way to tag these….? > > > > If the intended end result is for consumers of OSM data to be able to > “locate” a campground that best serves their needs (I’m sleeping in the > backseat of my car or a RV or in a horse trailer), what is the best > scenario here, when applied to 350+ NPS parks (We want a consistent > tagging)? > > > > Just to complicate this, some Front Country campgrounds can also > accommodate horses, as well. > > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semicolon#When_NOT_to_use_a_semi-colon_value_separatorsuggest > that most consumers of OSM data can’t parse the semi-colon, which I > have a hard time believing: any decent renderer using OSM data can use > “like” statements. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-us mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
