Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
41 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg
I've restarted the proposal process for camp_site=camp_pitch


This tag has already been used over 6800 times by over 380 mappers and is pretty well defined by the old proposal page from 2015 as an individual tent or caravan spot within a tourism=camp_site area.

These features should be mapped as a node (or possibly an area, when this is verifiable) and "ref=*" can be used for the number of the camp pitch. This will be useful for routing and could be rendered like addr:unit (most campsites do not have official unit numbers).

There is also a tag camp_site=pitch which is undocumented and seems to mean the same thing, but it is only used 1500 times by 34 mappers, and does not seem to be growing in usage. I'd recommend approving camp_site=camp_pitch instead

Please comment here or on the proposal discussion page:

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Markus-5
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 09:05, Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I've restarted the proposal process for camp_site=camp_pitch
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch

Looks good, thank you!

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
It mostly looks good, avoiding the over-namespacing of at least one of
the earlier proposals.

Should we consider clarifying that isolated sites that support only a
single party may/may not be tagged with camp_pitch?  I'm comfortable
with either: in one interpretation, a camp_pitch is simply a place for
a single party to camp; in the other a camp_pitch is a single party's
site, always within a larger facility.

I'm asking because most of the camping places that I visit are either
backcountry campsites, where a site is luxurious if it has a thunder
box http://tinyurl.com/y3clyav3 and a fire pit, or else roadside
campsites that are little more than a place to park a small caravan or
pitch a tent, and may have a proper outhouse or even a well with a
pitcher pump. They aren't parts of a larger campground.

In the case of one long string of roadside sites (spaced perhaps 400 m
apart), the area near the road
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6370357 is legally a
'campground' and is tagged as such. The laws governing usage are
different from those that apply in the wilderness areas beyond. The
roadside spots continue to be maintained because of a long-standing
customary use by hunters, trappers and fishermen to access those
wilderness areas. (The other campgrounds that you see in the vicinity
are 'proper' camp_sites with communal flush toilets and showers,
offices, swimming beaches and so on. There are other strings of
roadside campsites that are not so grouped. For instance, there are a
dozen or so sites on Gould Road east of the end of the 'campground'
that are legally 'wild forest'.

Is there recommended tagging for sites without land access?  At some
point I may start placing individual sites to get the ref=* tagging,
and there are a whole lot of pitches in that part of the world that
may be numbered, reserved, paid-for sites, but that you need a canoe
to get to, either because they're on islands, or because they're on
trail-less lakeshore (and I at least don't want to push through the
mud and vegetation to get to them overland).

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 3:05 AM Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I've restarted the proposal process for camp_site=camp_pitch
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
>
> This tag has already been used over 6800 times by over 380 mappers and is pretty well defined by the old proposal page from 2015 as an individual tent or caravan spot within a tourism=camp_site area.
>
> These features should be mapped as a node (or possibly an area, when this is verifiable) and "ref=*" can be used for the number of the camp pitch. This will be useful for routing and could be rendered like addr:unit (most campsites do not have official unit numbers).
>
> There is also a tag camp_site=pitch which is undocumented and seems to mean the same thing, but it is only used 1500 times by 34 mappers, and does not seem to be growing in usage. I'd recommend approving camp_site=camp_pitch instead
>
> Please comment here or on the proposal discussion page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg
The current proposal suggests that this is useful to define individual sites for tents or caravans within a larger leisure=camp_site area. 

I don’t see much use in double tagging a single backcountry tent site with leisure=camp_site and camp_site=camp_pitch on the same node.

Usually an individual campsite has a name rather than a ref= tag. 

For backcountry campsites, you can define the type of camp_site by using camp_site=basic (if there is no water or toilet) - see Key:camp_site

Joseph

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:33 PM Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
It mostly looks good, avoiding the over-namespacing of at least one of
the earlier proposals.

Should we consider clarifying that isolated sites that support only a
single party may/may not be tagged with camp_pitch?  I'm comfortable
with either: in one interpretation, a camp_pitch is simply a place for
a single party to camp; in the other a camp_pitch is a single party's
site, always within a larger facility.

I'm asking because most of the camping places that I visit are either
backcountry campsites, where a site is luxurious if it has a thunder
box http://tinyurl.com/y3clyav3 and a fire pit, or else roadside
campsites that are little more than a place to park a small caravan or
pitch a tent, and may have a proper outhouse or even a well with a
pitcher pump. They aren't parts of a larger campground.

In the case of one long string of roadside sites (spaced perhaps 400 m
apart), the area near the road
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6370357 is legally a
'campground' and is tagged as such. The laws governing usage are
different from those that apply in the wilderness areas beyond. The
roadside spots continue to be maintained because of a long-standing
customary use by hunters, trappers and fishermen to access those
wilderness areas. (The other campgrounds that you see in the vicinity
are 'proper' camp_sites with communal flush toilets and showers,
offices, swimming beaches and so on. There are other strings of
roadside campsites that are not so grouped. For instance, there are a
dozen or so sites on Gould Road east of the end of the 'campground'
that are legally 'wild forest'.

Is there recommended tagging for sites without land access?  At some
point I may start placing individual sites to get the ref=* tagging,
and there are a whole lot of pitches in that part of the world that
may be numbered, reserved, paid-for sites, but that you need a canoe
to get to, either because they're on islands, or because they're on
trail-less lakeshore (and I at least don't want to push through the
mud and vegetation to get to them overland).

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 3:05 AM Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I've restarted the proposal process for camp_site=camp_pitch
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
>
> This tag has already been used over 6800 times by over 380 mappers and is pretty well defined by the old proposal page from 2015 as an individual tent or caravan spot within a tourism=camp_site area.
>
> These features should be mapped as a node (or possibly an area, when this is verifiable) and "ref=*" can be used for the number of the camp pitch. This will be useful for routing and could be rendered like addr:unit (most campsites do not have official unit numbers).
>
> There is also a tag camp_site=pitch which is undocumented and seems to mean the same thing, but it is only used 1500 times by 34 mappers, and does not seem to be growing in usage. I'd recommend approving camp_site=camp_pitch instead
>
> Please comment here or on the proposal discussion page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg
I mean tourism=camp_site, sorry for the confusion.

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:51 PM Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
The current proposal suggests that this is useful to define individual sites for tents or caravans within a larger leisure=camp_site area. 

I don’t see much use in double tagging a single backcountry tent site with leisure=camp_site and camp_site=camp_pitch on the same node.

Usually an individual campsite has a name rather than a ref= tag. 

For backcountry campsites, you can define the type of camp_site by using camp_site=basic (if there is no water or toilet) - see Key:camp_site

Joseph

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:33 PM Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
It mostly looks good, avoiding the over-namespacing of at least one of
the earlier proposals.

Should we consider clarifying that isolated sites that support only a
single party may/may not be tagged with camp_pitch?  I'm comfortable
with either: in one interpretation, a camp_pitch is simply a place for
a single party to camp; in the other a camp_pitch is a single party's
site, always within a larger facility.

I'm asking because most of the camping places that I visit are either
backcountry campsites, where a site is luxurious if it has a thunder
box http://tinyurl.com/y3clyav3 and a fire pit, or else roadside
campsites that are little more than a place to park a small caravan or
pitch a tent, and may have a proper outhouse or even a well with a
pitcher pump. They aren't parts of a larger campground.

In the case of one long string of roadside sites (spaced perhaps 400 m
apart), the area near the road
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6370357 is legally a
'campground' and is tagged as such. The laws governing usage are
different from those that apply in the wilderness areas beyond. The
roadside spots continue to be maintained because of a long-standing
customary use by hunters, trappers and fishermen to access those
wilderness areas. (The other campgrounds that you see in the vicinity
are 'proper' camp_sites with communal flush toilets and showers,
offices, swimming beaches and so on. There are other strings of
roadside campsites that are not so grouped. For instance, there are a
dozen or so sites on Gould Road east of the end of the 'campground'
that are legally 'wild forest'.

Is there recommended tagging for sites without land access?  At some
point I may start placing individual sites to get the ref=* tagging,
and there are a whole lot of pitches in that part of the world that
may be numbered, reserved, paid-for sites, but that you need a canoe
to get to, either because they're on islands, or because they're on
trail-less lakeshore (and I at least don't want to push through the
mud and vegetation to get to them overland).

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 3:05 AM Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I've restarted the proposal process for camp_site=camp_pitch
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
>
> This tag has already been used over 6800 times by over 380 mappers and is pretty well defined by the old proposal page from 2015 as an individual tent or caravan spot within a tourism=camp_site area.
>
> These features should be mapped as a node (or possibly an area, when this is verifiable) and "ref=*" can be used for the number of the camp pitch. This will be useful for routing and could be rendered like addr:unit (most campsites do not have official unit numbers).
>
> There is also a tag camp_site=pitch which is undocumented and seems to mean the same thing, but it is only used 1500 times by 34 mappers, and does not seem to be growing in usage. I'd recommend approving camp_site=camp_pitch instead
>
> Please comment here or on the proposal discussion page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Tod Fitch
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg

On Apr 10, 2019, at 12:02 AM, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

I've restarted the proposal process for camp_site=camp_pitch


This tag has already been used over 6800 times by over 380 mappers and is pretty well defined by the old proposal page from 2015 as an individual tent or caravan spot within a tourism=camp_site area.

These features should be mapped as a node (or possibly an area, when this is verifiable) and "ref=*" can be used for the number of the camp pitch. This will be useful for routing and could be rendered like addr:unit (most campsites do not have official unit numbers).

There is also a tag camp_site=pitch which is undocumented and seems to mean the same thing, but it is only used 1500 times by 34 mappers, and does not seem to be growing in usage. I'd recommend approving camp_site=camp_pitch instead

Please comment here or on the proposal discussion page:


I am not sure that a “restart” of discussion of camp_site=pitch on this list is required: There are nearly 7000 usages [1] spread pretty much around the whole world [2]. This implies to me that what someone ought to do is move this old proposal into a description of how it is actually being used. Bike shedding it here among the dozen or so people that will argue this forever is just a waste of energy.

The edit of the proposal made in the last couple of days removed details on how to tag the amenities associated with each camp pitch (the suggested camp_pitch:*=* tagging). These have also gained some traction [3] and by this deletion there is no explanation of them anywhere in the wiki. Not good! I am of a mind to revert that part of your changes just so the many uses found around the world have some definition of what they mean and what values are documented.

Given the usage trends, I agree that we should deprecate the camp_site=pitch (and its associated sub-tagging) and suggest the camp_site=camp_pitch tagging instead.


On Apr 10, 2019, at 6:51 AM, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

The current proposal suggests that this is useful to define individual sites for tents or caravans within a larger leisure=camp_site area. 

I don’t see much use in double tagging a single backcountry tent site with leisure=camp_site and camp_site=camp_pitch on the same node.

Usually an individual campsite has a name rather than a ref= tag. 

For backcountry campsites, you can define the type of camp_site by using camp_site=basic (if there is no water or toilet) - see Key:camp_site

Joseph


If the camp site has only a single pitch then I agree the tagging is over kill and maybe some simplifications are in order. But I my part of the world many (most?) backcountry camp sites actually have more than one area to pitch a tent and many of those actually are developed enough to have fire rings (fires outside of an official location is highly frowned upon). So I’d argue that a blanket “we don’t need this for backcountry camp sites” may be region specific.

I strongly suggest the way forward here is to simply move the old “proposed features” for camp_site=camp_pitch, with sub-tagging defined, into the regular pages of the wiki that describe tagging actually in use.



Cheers,
Tod




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg
Tod,
I have already updated the Key:camp_site page with a longer
description of this tag, camp_site=camp_pitch tag, because it is the
most common value of camp_site=*.

The reasons for the proposal instead of just making a wiki page:
1) To clarify that camp_site=pitch (1500 uses) should be changed to
camp_site=camp_pitch (7000 uses).
2) To add it to the official Features list
3) Give the community a chance to discuss the change.

All of these will make it much more likely that the tag will be
accepted as a way to render the "ref=*" of camp pitches.

(In the unlikely event that the proposal is rejected, I will document
this as well, but the tag will be documented as "in use", not added to
features, camp_site=pitch will not be listed as a mistake, and the
critical comments will be summarized on the wiki page)

Re: "... removed details on how to tag the amenities associated with
each camp pitch (the suggested camp_pitch:*=* tagging). ... by this
deletion there is no explanation of them anywhere in the wiki."

That's not quite right. These tags are till found on the discussion
page of the proposal
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch),

Don't worry, I intend to make a proposal page for the "camp_pitch:*=*"
tags, but because this is more complicated, I believe it's safer to
make it a separate proposal page. I just didn't have time to do it
yesterday.

Re: "many (most?) backcountry camp sites actually have more than one
area to pitch a tent and many of those actually are developed enough
to have fire rings (fires outside of an official location is highly
frowned upon). So I’d argue that a blanket “we don’t need this for
backcountry camp sites” may be region specific."

I did not intent to imply that this key should not be used for
backcountry camp sites in my earlier comments or in the proposal. Any
campground or campsite with multiple pitches can use this tag, whether
it is highly developed or remote.

Joseph

On 4/11/19, Tod Fitch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am not sure that a “restart” of discussion of camp_site=pitch on this list
> is required: There are nearly 7000 usages [1] spread pretty much around the
> whole world [2]. This implies to me that what someone ought to do is move
> this old proposal into a description of how it is actually being used. Bike
> shedding it here among the dozen or so people that will argue this forever
> is just a waste of energy.
>
> The edit of the proposal made in the last couple of days removed details on
> how to tag the amenities associated with each camp pitch (the suggested
> camp_pitch:*=* tagging). These have also gained some traction [3] and by
> this deletion there is no explanation of them anywhere in the wiki. Not
> good! I am of a mind to revert that part of your changes just so the many
> uses found around the world have some definition of what they mean and what
> values are documented.
>
> Given the usage trends, I agree that we should deprecate the camp_site=pitch
> (and its associated sub-tagging) and suggest the camp_site=camp_pitch
> tagging instead.
>
>
> If the camp site has only a single pitch then I agree the tagging is over
> kill and maybe some simplifications are in order. But I my part of the world
> many (most?) backcountry camp sites actually have more than one area to
> pitch a tent and many of those actually are developed enough to have fire
> rings (fires outside of an official location is highly frowned upon). So I’d
> argue that a blanket “we don’t need this for backcountry camp sites” may be
> region specific.
>
> I strongly suggest the way forward here is to simply move the old “proposed
> features” for camp_site=camp_pitch, with sub-tagging defined, into the
> regular pages of the wiki that describe tagging actually in use.
>
> [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/camp_site=camp_pitch#overview
> [2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/camp_site=camp_pitch#map
> [3] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=camp_pitch
>
> Cheers,
> Tod

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Sven Geggus
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Please comment here or on the proposal discussion page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch

Looks good, by and large :)

Any reason for using a "camp_pitch:" prefix/namespace instead of generic
tagging?

A surface is just a surface after all and the information, that it is the
surface of a camp_pitch is already given by the camp_site=camp_pitch
tagging. So prefixing is redundant at best.

In practice this stuff will only lead to some kind of unificatiopn
step when processing data. Frankly, I would prefer using generic tags.

I already ran into this problem when dealing with website vs.
contact:website where I had to implement a special handling for this stuff.

Looking at the additional tags I would also suggest to add the following for
nodes:
* width
* length
* direction

Rationale for this is, that at least here in Germany there are wooden
pitches in some backcountry campsites where this information might be very
useful.

See http://www.naturpark-eifel.de/de/projekte/detail/Eifel-Trekking-32o/ for
an image of such a beast.

Regards

Sven

--
Author of http://opencampingmap.org

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Sven Geggus
Hello again,

forgot another one.

At least here in Germany most campsites have different pitches for short
term or long term campers.

While the former ones usually stay for a few days or weeks only, the latter
ones are more or less permanent residents which pay on a seasonal base
rather than a daily one.

I already invented a "permanent_camping"="yes","no","only" tagging for
tourism=camp_site which is rendered in http://opencampingmap.org, but these
are usually separated pitches on campsites which offer both.

An example for such a map with different kinds of pitches is here:
https://www.st.leoner-see.de/_Resources/Persistent/9edfc4f633cfdde20abd8744cdba220af0564f1d/St.Leoner_See_Plan_03_2019.pdf

Individual pitches are not mapped in OSM on this site:
https://opencampingmap.org/#12/49.2773/8.5546/0/0/bef/way/56323471

Regards

Sven

--
"If you don't make lower-resolution mapping data publicly
available, there will be people with their cars and GPS
devices, driving around with their laptops" (Tim Berners-Lee)
/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Sven Geggus
Hi Sven,

> Any reason for using a "camp_pitch:" prefix/namespace instead of generic
> tagging?

I believe you are commenting on the "Key:camp_pitch" proposal, which I
posted about one day after the Camp_site=camp_pitch proposal. It's
easy to get them mixed up. I did it just this morning myself!

> A surface is just a surface after all and the information, that it is the
> surface of a camp_pitch is already given by the camp_site=camp_pitch
> tagging. So prefixing is redundant at best.
>
> In practice this stuff will only lead to some kind of unificatiopn
> step when processing data. Frankly, I would prefer using generic tags.

I think that's a reasonable point. This namespaced tagging was not my
idea, I'm just reposting it as a new proposal. I agree that just using
keys like surface=* and drinking_water=* would be simpler.

> Looking at the additional tags I would also suggest to add the following for
> nodes:
> * width
> * length
> * direction
>
> Rationale for this is, that at least here in Germany there are wooden
> pitches in some backcountry campsites where this information might be very
> useful.

Sure, this could be suggested on the final wiki page. I can see length
being especially important for caravan and motorhome/RV pitches;
usually you need to check that the site is long enough for the
vehicle.

I'm not sure if direction is necessary. How would the direction tag be used?

If the pitch has a clear rectangular shape it could be mapped as an
area. But many tent pitches do not have clearly verifiable boundaries;
these should be mapped as nodes.

- Joseph

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Sven Geggus
On 4/11/19, Sven Geggus <[hidden email]> wrote:

> At least here in Germany most campsites have different pitches for short
> term or long term campers.
>
> While the former ones usually stay for a few days or weeks only, the latter
> ones are more or less permanent residents which pay on a seasonal base
> rather than a daily one.
>
> I already invented a "permanent_camping"="yes","no","only" tagging for
> tourism=camp_site which is rendered in http://opencampingmap.org, but these
> are usually separated pitches on campsites which offer both.

I assume these are caravan or motorhome sites? I'd be surprised if
year-round tent camping were feasible in Germany.

The tags permanent_camping=yes and permanent_camping=no are a good idea.

Perhaps there could also be something like longterm_camping=yes for
pitches that can be used longer than 2 weeks at a time, but not
year-round?

But I think that a place with "permanent_camping=only" is mistagged.
It would be landuse=residential rather than tourism=camp_site or
=caravan_site, no? It's no longer a tourism feature if it's only for
permanent residences.

There is a tag "building=static_caravan" (based on British English)
for  motorhomes / trailers / caravans and mobile homes which are used
as permanent residences in one place, year-round.

We have many "mobile home parks" in the USA which are intended for
year-road habitation, and most of the "vehicles" are up on jacks. Many
have decks and porches built on. I believe these are mapped as
landuse=residential areas, with building=static_caravan for each home.

-Joseph

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

marc marc
Le 11.04.19 à 12:00, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> The tags permanent_camping=yes and permanent_camping=no are a good idea.

opening_hours=* or seasonal=* doesn't fit the need ?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg
Most camping sites on government land in the USA only allow people to stay for 2 weeks at a time, so it’s not only about the operating season.

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 7:59 PM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
Le 11.04.19 à 12:00, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> The tags permanent_camping=yes and permanent_camping=no are a good idea.

opening_hours=* or seasonal=* doesn't fit the need ?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Sven Geggus
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I assume these are caravan or motorhome sites?

Yep mostly caravans with wheels removed and awnings.

> But I think that a place with "permanent_camping=only" is mistagged.

Hm basically these are members-only sites without reception but still
campsites at least in legal terms.

> There is a tag "building=static_caravan" (based on British English)
> for  motorhomes / trailers / caravans and mobile homes which are used
> as permanent residences in one place, year-round.

Which does not fit, as theses caravans+awnings still need to be movable at
least in theory to stay legal. Theses sites are still somehwat tourism as
they are usually used like weekend houses.

> We have many "mobile home parks" in the USA which are intended for
> year-road habitation, and most of the "vehicles" are up on jacks. Many
> have decks and porches built on. I believe these are mapped as
> landuse=residential areas, with building=static_caravan for each home.

Hm, might be similar, hard to tell.

Sven

--
Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden
(Rosa Luxemburg)

/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg
It sounds like your sites are used as second homes or vacation homes
in the countryside, so I can see how that could still fit under
tourism=caravan_site.

A "mobile home park" (or "trailer park") in the USA has trailers or
mobile homes used as primary residences by low-income families, in
most cases

On 4/11/19, Sven Geggus <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I assume these are caravan or motorhome sites?
>
> Yep mostly caravans with wheels removed and awnings.
>
>> But I think that a place with "permanent_camping=only" is mistagged.
>
> Hm basically these are members-only sites without reception but still
> campsites at least in legal terms.
>
>> There is a tag "building=static_caravan" (based on British English)
>> for  motorhomes / trailers / caravans and mobile homes which are used
>> as permanent residences in one place, year-round.
>
> Which does not fit, as theses caravans+awnings still need to be movable at
> least in theory to stay legal. Theses sites are still somehwat tourism as
> they are usually used like weekend houses.
>
>> We have many "mobile home parks" in the USA which are intended for
>> year-road habitation, and most of the "vehicles" are up on jacks. Many
>> have decks and porches built on. I believe these are mapped as
>> landuse=residential areas, with building=static_caravan for each home.
>
> Hm, might be similar, hard to tell.
>
> Sven
>
> --
> Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden
> (Rosa Luxemburg)
>
> /me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Sven Geggus
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm not sure if direction is necessary. How would the direction tag be used?

Direction would be like with benches.

> If the pitch has a clear rectangular shape it could be mapped as an
> area.

Shure, if it can be copied from an aerial image but if its a wooden platform
inside a forest all you can aquire then is width, length and direction.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:direction

Still importatnt to see if its big enough for your tent.

> But many tent pitches do not have clearly verifiable boundaries;
> these should be mapped as nodes.

Right, if they are right on the ground.

I have two examples of the former and the latter from backcountry campsites
in the black forest:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5001823515
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4935721966

Image of wooden Platform:
https://naturparkschwarzwald.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Camp-Erdbeerloch.jpg

Sven

--
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes itself,
exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet
that did not commit suicide." (John Quincy Adams)
/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Sven Geggus
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It sounds like your sites are used as second homes or vacation homes
> in the countryside, so I can see how that could still fit under
> tourism=caravan_site.

Exactly. However an access=private or access=members might be sufficient as
well.

Sven

--
"Dynamische IP-Nummern sind Security-Homöopathie."
                                                (Kristian Köhntopp)

/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg


sent from a phone

> On 10. Apr 2019, at 09:02, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> There is also a tag camp_site=pitch which is undocumented and seems to mean the same thing, but it is only used 1500 times by 34 mappers, and does not seem to be growing in usage. I'd recommend approving camp_site=camp_pitch instead


I’m fine with mapping individual pitches, but I don’t like the key. “camp_site=*” sounds like a tag for the subtype of a camp site rather than a different feature within such a site.

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Sven Geggus
Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I’m fine with mapping individual pitches, but I don’t like the key.
> “camp_site=*” sounds like a tag for the subtype of a camp site rather than
> a different feature within such a site.

Unfortunately its currently used for both.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:camp_site

Not particular nice, but not that bad either. Changing this tag to something
else would need automatic editing of 6941 objects.

As I already said that I object the camp_pitch prefixing for subtags.

Looking at them I also suggest to use the already established tags
"power_supply" and "fireplace" instead of "camp_pitch:fire" and
"camp_pitch:electric".

Regards

Sven

--
Um Kontrolle Ihres Kontos wiederzugewinnen, klicken Sie bitte auf das
Verbindungsgebrüll. (aus einer Ebay fishing Mail)

/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg
I agree that "camp_site=camp_pitch" isn't a perfect tag name, but it's
been used so often that I don't think it's worth changing. It's
already supported with a preset in ID as well.

As mentioned in the older version of the proposal, the value is
"camp_pitch" to avoid ambiguity with sporting pitches or fields.

The key "camp_site" was probably used to show that is needs to be a
feature of a tourism-camp_site (or caravan_site).

In this way it is similar to "allotments=plot", which is used to show
an individual garden plot for one family, within a larger area of
landuse=allotments/

If "tourism=camp_pitch" or "amenity=camp_pitch" were used, it might be
confused with a stand-alone campsite.

Joseph

On 4/12/19, Sven Geggus <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I’m fine with mapping individual pitches, but I don’t like the key.
>> “camp_site=*” sounds like a tag for the subtype of a camp site rather than
>> a different feature within such a site.
>
> Unfortunately its currently used for both.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:camp_site
>
> Not particular nice, but not that bad either. Changing this tag to something
> else would need automatic editing of 6941 objects.
>
> As I already said that I object the camp_pitch prefixing for subtags.
>
> Looking at them I also suggest to use the already established tags
> "power_supply" and "fireplace" instead of "camp_pitch:fire" and
> "camp_pitch:electric".
>
> Regards
>
> Sven
>
> --
> Um Kontrolle Ihres Kontos wiederzugewinnen, klicken Sie bitte auf das
> Verbindungsgebrüll. (aus einer Ebay fishing Mail)
>
> /me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
123