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
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 12. Apr 2019, at 15:37, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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.


I would not say it is used frequently, we have 100.000 camp sites tagged, and only 7000 pitches with this tag, and it is probably undisputed that there should be more pitches than sites in the world.
I would rather prefer to agree on retagging now than when we have 1 million of them.


> It's
> already supported with a preset in ID as well.


sigh

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

marc marc
In reply to this post by Sven Geggus
Le 12.04.19 à 13:03, Sven Geggus a écrit :
> the already established tags "power_supply" <...>
> instead of <...> "camp_pitch:electric"
the sad thing is that power_supply is not harmonized
with plug=* used for amenity=charching_station.
_______________________________________________
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 dieterdreist
Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would not say it is used frequently, we have 100.000 camp sites tagged,
> and only 7000 pitches with this tag

Given the fact, that about half of them do not have more tags than name
(about a quarter lack even name)  this ratio is not all that bad.

Regards

Sven

--
.. this message has been created using an outdated OS (UNIX-like) with an
outdated mail- or newsreader (text-only) :-P

/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
Martin, do you have a suggestion for a different key or value for this tag?

I mentioned "tourism=camp_pitch" or "amenity=camp_pitch" above, but I
think this could cause people to start using this as a stand-alone
feature, perhaps for small or remote campsites that have only one
pitch. However, I don't think this would be good. Mappers should use
the established tag "tourism=camp_site" to map the outline of the
whole camping area, whether it is for 1 tent or 1000.

By using a different key, like "camp_site=*", this is more clearly a
"sub-feature" of tourism=camp_site

Joseph

On 4/14/19, Sven Geggus <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I would not say it is used frequently, we have 100.000 camp sites tagged,
>> and only 7000 pitches with this tag
>
> Given the fact, that about half of them do not have more tags than name
> (about a quarter lack even name)  this ratio is not all that bad.
>
> Regards
>
> Sven
>
> --
> .. this message has been created using an outdated OS (UNIX-like) with an
> outdated mail- or newsreader (text-only) :-P
>
> /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

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

On 14. Apr 2019, at 15:46, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

By using a different key, like "camp_site=*", this is more clearly a
"sub-feature" of tourism=camp_site


IMHO the tag indicates a subtype of camp site, rather than a feature.
I am not opposing a new key, but why “site”? E.g.
camping=pitch
or
camp=pitch 

There are already types of camping sites tagged with the camp_site key:
admittedly fewer than camp_site=camp_pitch

There is also noteworthy usage of 
camp_pitch:type

Camping pitches could become their own key:
camp_pitch=motorhome / tent / see taginfo for camp_pitch:type=*

is it camp_pitch or would camping_pitch be better?

Ciao, 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

marc marc
Le 14.04.19 à 17:28, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> Camping pitches could become their own key:

one of the problems is that each key has its own logic
a part of a amenity=building is building:part=*
a part of the amenity=parking is amenity=parking_space
a part of a leisure=sports_centre is leisure=pitch unless it is water
then it is leisure=swimming_pool

new keys deserve to have some consistency.
e.g. :part if the part does not have a name in itself
_______________________________________________
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


sent from a phone

> On 14. Apr 2019, at 18:36, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> one of the problems is that each key has its own logic
> a part of a amenity=building is building:part=*
> a part of the amenity=parking is amenity=parking_space
> a part of a leisure=sports_centre is leisure=pitch unless it is water
> then it is leisure=swimming_pool
>
> new keys deserve to have some consistency.
> e.g. :part if the part does not have a name in itself


I don’t follow this, a part of a park is a park:part (bench, tree etc)? A part of a city? This would be ridiculous or ambiguous or arbitrary most of the time, but for buildings it works well, also if the part has its own name.

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

marc marc
Le 14.04.19 à 21:35, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>> On 14. Apr 2019, at 18:36, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> one of the problems is that each key has its own logic
>> a part of a amenity=building is building:part=*
>> a part of the amenity=parking is amenity=parking_space
>> a part of a leisure=sports_centre is leisure=pitch unless it is water
>> then it is leisure=swimming_pool
>>
>> new keys deserve to have some consistency.
>> e.g. :part if the part does not have a name in itself

> I don’t follow this, a part of a park is a park:part (bench, tree etc)? A part of a city?
> This would be ridiculous or ambiguous or arbitrary most of the time, but for buildings it works well, also if the part has its own name.

I was obviously talking about the case where the parts have the same
characteristics as the whole. an amenity=parking capacity=1 have the
same characteristic as a parking_space capacity=1.
I wasn't talking about dividing a park into lots of :part
for every tree, every bench, every blade of grass.
a bench is not part of a park, it is an equipment found in some of them.

if you cut a leisure=park in 2 to say that one part has a different tag
from the other (for example, a part closed at night), it would be a bit
silly to invent a new term to say "part of a park" or to have to claim
that there are 2 parks.

there was the same kind of discussion also with the relationships
grouping several natural=wood and whose relationship is used to put
the tag name

I find also strange it's perfect to have parking_space camping_pitch
and that it would be arbitrary to call it X:part or any other sufixe
instead of inventing a new one for each value
_______________________________________________
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

Tobias Wrede
Hi,

I follow Martin's reasoning that camp_site=camp_pitch more looks like it
being a specification of camp_site rather than describing a feature
within. Following Marc's examples (parking and sports centre)
tourism=camp_pitch (following tourism=camp_site and
tourism=caravan_site) would be my preferred choice. Even more so, as it
wouldn't look as if a camp_pitch could not be used within a caravan_site.

On the other hand I have used camp_site=camp_pitch before myself and I
am unsure if retagging these x'000 existing occurrences would make sense.

Tobias


_______________________________________________
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


sent from a phone

On 15. Apr 2019, at 13:45, Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]> wrote:

tourism=camp_pitch (following tourism=camp_site and tourism=caravan_site) would be my preferred choice.



+1, btw, there are already 226 of these:


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:

> +1, btw, there are already 226 of these:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tourism=camp_pitch

I object using a generic key like tourism for something this specific as
sub-features of a camp site.  Although the existing ones do look like
miss-tagged camp_site=camp_pitch.

Your suggestion would not allow for tagging a site like this:
tourism=camp_site
camp_site=camp_pitch

which would make sense, as single pitch camp-sites _do_ exist.

Very simular beasts are individual plots within allotments and these are
tagged alike camp_site=camp_pitch:
landuse=allotments
allotments=plot

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

marc marc
Le 17.04.19 à 11:34, Sven Geggus a écrit :
> tourism=camp_site
> camp_site=camp_pitch
>
> which would make sense, as single pitch camp-sites_do_  exist.

indeed, but a parking with one place, is not mapped as amenity=parking
parking=parking_space
_______________________________________________
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

Tobias Wrede
Am 17.04.2019 um 13:32 schrieb marc marc:
> Le 17.04.19 à 11:34, Sven Geggus a écrit :
>> tourism=camp_site
>> camp_site=camp_pitch
>>
>> which would make sense, as single pitch camp-sites_do_  exist.
> indeed, but a parking with one place, is not mapped as amenity=parking
> parking=parking_space

Actually, your example Sven makes perfect sense exactly in the case
where the camp site consists of one camp pitch. That's the usual
interpretation of tags following the scheme A=B, B=C, e. g.
tourism=information + information=board: an information board,
highway=crossing + crossing=uncontrolled: an uncontrolled crossing,
tourism=museum + museum=history: a history museum.

So under tourism=camp_site + camp_site=camp_pitch I would expect a (one)
camp pitch camp site.

On the other hand parts of bigger things are often mapped by repeating
the main tag, e. g. (copied from Marc):

a part of the amenity=parking is amenity=parking_space
a part of a leisure=sports_centre is leisure=pitch [...]

So why not tourism=camp_pitch within tourism=camp_site by the same logic?

Tobi

 


_______________________________________________
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
Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So why not tourism=camp_pitch within tourism=camp_site by the same logic?

Mainly because the other type of tagging is the already established one and
there is no good reason for changing this.

The fact, that campsites with one pitch are not taggable is something I
would consider a minor issue.

Sven

--
/*
 * Wirzenius wrote this portably, Torvalds fucked it up :-)
 */                        (taken from /usr/src/linux/lib/vsprintf.c)
/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 Sven Geggus


sent from a phone

> On 17. Apr 2019, at 11:34, Sven Geggus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Your suggestion would not allow for tagging a site like this:
> tourism=camp_site
> camp_site=camp_pitch


This combination, with the semantics you have in mind, on the same object, would not be possible, on the other hand there would not be much need for mapping individual pitches if the whole site is just one “pitch” (not sure the word pitch applies in this case).

And you may eventually be able to keep the exact same tagging but with different intended semantics (and basically the same meaning for the people who use the map): camp_pitch as subtype of camp site, not as a pitch object like tourism=camp_pitch

There are also other ways to express similar information. “capacity” is not very diffuse yet (3000), but seems suitable to get an idea how many fellow campers might be awaiting you, and is universally applicable.

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

Joseph Eisenberg
I'm made some minor updates to the proposal page in response to
comments here and one on the talk page.

1) More than 1 tent allowed:
A camp pitch can sometimes allow more than one tent. Often a family
can have separate tents for parents and kids, and there are also
"group site" which are reserved for a single party and have a single
reference number, but can hold dozens of people

2) I added comments about the reasons for going with
camp-site=camp_pitch instead of tourism=*

a) - Using the tourism key would make it not possible to tag a
tourism=camp_site and camp_site=camp_pitch on a single node, in the
case of very small campsites that only have one pitch.
b) - More importantly, it is thought that using a standard key like
"tourism" might imply that this is a stand-alone feature; it might be
used instead of tourism=camp_site rather than inside of a
tourism=camp_site area.
c) Most importantly, camp_site=camp_pitch is currently in use and
extensive retagging would be required to change the tag or key.

Martin, I don't understand this comment:
On 4/18/19, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And you may eventually be able to keep the exact same tagging but with
> different intended semantics (and basically the same meaning for the people
> who use the map): camp_pitch as subtype of camp site, not as a pitch object
> like tourism=camp_pitch

What do you mean by "camp_pitch as a subtype of camp site"? Are you
proposing something like this:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:camp_pitch

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

Graeme Fitzpatrick
A few thoughts re some of the fine details

Surface - a grass site with a concrete slab is very common. Should that be grass, concrete or grass;concrete?

Fire - it's also quite common for fires to only be allowed off the ground, in braziers / fire pits - fire=off_ground?

Power, water, drain - often provided as a single post shared between 2 or 4 adjacent pitches, with separate power points & taps for each, but with a common drain for grey water. Would the power, water & drain tags go on the individual pitches, or on a common node?

Thanks

Graeme

_______________________________________________
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 23. Apr 2019, at 15:00, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> What do you mean by "camp_pitch as a subtype of camp site"? Are you
> proposing something like this:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:camp_pitch


no, I was referring to key camp_site=* as key for subtypes of camp sites. “camp_pitch” could be seen as one of the subtypes of camp sites (a site consisting of one pitch)


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

Joseph Eisenberg
I'm afraid that using camp_site=camp_pitch as a subtag on
tourism=camp_site features, and using "tourism=pitch" for separate
tagging would combine the same disadvantages as using
camp_site=camp_pitch as an independent feature, plus the disadvantages
of adopting a new tag under the tourism key.

Your suggestion would require redefining "camp_site=camp_pitch" to be
a subkey of "tourism=camp_site" even though it is mainly used by
itself to map individual pitches.

Then we would need to retag all of the other "camp_site=camp_pitch"
objects - but not necessarily the ones that are also tagged with
tourism=camp_site. This would be confusing and still would require a
large amount of retagging of features that were used by dozens of
mappers over the past few years.

And if "tourism=camp_pitch" were the new approved tag, it could still
be accidentally used instead of "tourism=camp_site" for individual
features (I almost mixed that up just while typing this).

I still think it's easiest for us to approve the fairly popular tag
"camp_site=camp_pitch", which is already supported by some editors,
since the alternatives also have some disadvantages.

Joseph

On 4/24/19, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 23. Apr 2019, at 15:00, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]>
>> What do you mean by "camp_pitch as a subtype of camp site"? Are you
>> proposing something like this: Proposed_features/Key:camp_pitch
>
> no, I was referring to key camp_site=* as key for subtypes of camp sites.
> “camp_pitch” could be seen as one of the subtypes of camp sites (a site
> consisting of one pitch)

_______________________________________________
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


sent from a phone

> On 26. Apr 2019, at 04:08, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Then we would need to retag all of the other "camp_site=camp_pitch"
> objects


yes, my suggestion would be to retag all* 7000 camp_site=camp_pitch to a pitch tag and keep the camp_site values that refer to camp_site types (like basic, spontaneous_camp, serviced, standard, deluxe, primitive etc.) as it is more consistent with the general system of a=b b=c...
where c is a subtype of a=b

Wrt the number on camping pitches on earth, and to the number of camp sites mapped, 7000 seems a minor number.


* if you like, those camp_site=camp_pitch (very few) that describe a single pitch camp site could keep the tagging, but it will probably create friction with people still using the same tag for individual pitches, so my suggestion would be camp_site=single_pitch for these


Cheers, Martin



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