Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg
I believe the discussion about the tag camp_site=camp_pitch is now
complete here. Also see the talk page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch

You can now vote to approve or reject this tag. See:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch

Description of camp_site=camp_pitch:
"An tent or caravan pitch location within a camp site"

This proposal provides a way to tag individual pitches within a
campground or caravan site. A "camp pitch" in this context is the free
space used to place a tent or or caravan within a tourism=camp_site or
tourism=caravan_site area. Usually only one caravan is permitted in an
individual pitch, but more than 1 tent may be allowed on a single
pitch in some cases."

Please read the proposal and vote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch#Voting

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

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg
Reminder: voting is underway to approve the tag  camp_site=camp_pitch
since May 1st so it  will continue for the next week till May 14th
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch

Please check out the proposal page and add your comments or votes:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch#Voting

On 5/1/19, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I believe the discussion about the tag camp_site=camp_pitch is now
> complete here. Also see the talk page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
>
> You can now vote to approve or reject this tag. See:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
>
> Description of camp_site=camp_pitch:
> "An tent or caravan pitch location within a camp site"
>
> This proposal provides a way to tag individual pitches within a
> campground or caravan site. A "camp pitch" in this context is the free
> space used to place a tent or or caravan within a tourism=camp_site or
> tourism=caravan_site area. Usually only one caravan is permitted in an
> individual pitch, but more than 1 tent may be allowed on a single
> pitch in some cases."
>
> Please read the proposal and vote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch#Voting
>

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

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg
It appears that the proposal for camp_site=camp_pitch will be rejected
with 12 votes in opposition out of 26 votes total, for

A couple of those who voted in opposition would prefer to use
"tourism=camp_pitch" instead. There were also a couple of people who
suggested "tourism=camp_site:part" and a couple in favor of
"camp_site:part=camp_pitch". Several other people voted in opposition
but did not specify a preferred alternative.

So what's that best tag to try instead?

I think "camp_site:part=*" is rather convoluted, and
"tourism=camp_pitch" has the benefit of using a well-known key, but
perhaps there are other suggestions?

On 5/8/19, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Reminder: voting is underway to approve the tag  camp_site=camp_pitch
> since May 1st so it  will continue for the next week till May 14th
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
>
> Please check out the proposal page and add your comments or votes:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch#Voting
>
> On 5/1/19, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I believe the discussion about the tag camp_site=camp_pitch is now
>> complete here. Also see the talk page:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
>>
>> You can now vote to approve or reject this tag. See:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
>>
>> Description of camp_site=camp_pitch:
>> "An tent or caravan pitch location within a camp site"
>>
>> This proposal provides a way to tag individual pitches within a
>> campground or caravan site. A "camp pitch" in this context is the free
>> space used to place a tent or or caravan within a tourism=camp_site or
>> tourism=caravan_site area. Usually only one caravan is permitted in an
>> individual pitch, but more than 1 tent may be allowed on a single
>> pitch in some cases."
>>
>> Please read the proposal and vote:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch#Voting
>>
>

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

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Jan S
Hi,

I find camp_site:part=* somewhat complicated, too. Also, it wouldn't be consistent with the use of camp_site=* to describe the type of camping site, either.

I'd prefer tourism=camp_pitch. This also has the advantage that this key can be used for isolated camping pitches that are not part of a proper camping ground.

Best, Jan

Am 20. Mai 2019 11:39:17 MESZ schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]>:
It appears that the proposal for camp_site=camp_pitch will be rejected
with 12 votes in opposition out of 26 votes total, for

A couple of those who voted in opposition would prefer to use
"tourism=camp_pitch" instead. There were also a couple of people who
suggested "tourism=camp_site:part" and a couple in favor of
"camp_site:part=camp_pitch". Several other people voted in opposition
but did not specify a preferred alternative.

So what's that best tag to try instead?

I think "camp_site:part=*" is rather convoluted, and
"tourism=camp_pitch" has the benefit of using a well-known key, but
perhaps there are other suggestions?

On 5/8/19, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Reminder: voting is underway to approve the tag camp_site=camp_pitch
since May 1st so it will continue for the next week till May 14th
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch

Please check out the proposal page and add your comments or votes:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch#Voting

On 5/1/19, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
I believe the discussion about the tag camp_site=camp_pitch is now
complete here. Also see the talk page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch

You can now vote to approve or reject this tag. See:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch

Description of camp_site=camp_pitch:
"An tent or caravan pitch location within a camp site"

This proposal provides a way to tag individual pitches within a
campground or caravan site. A "camp pitch" in this context is the free
space used to place a tent or or caravan within a tourism=camp_site or
tourism=caravan_site area. Usually only one caravan is permitted in an
individual pitch, but more than 1 tent may be allowed on a single
pitch in some cases."

Please read the proposal and vote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch#Voting


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 - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Markus-5
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 11:41, Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> So what's that best tag to try instead?
>
> I think "camp_site:part=*" is rather convoluted, and
> "tourism=camp_pitch" has the benefit of using a well-known key, but
> perhaps there are other suggestions?

I prefer the camp_site:part=camp_pitch because the :part suffix is
already in use in building:part=* and could become a standard suffix
for parts of other objects, such as named parts of forests or lakes,
numbered grave fields of cemeteries or thematic parts of botanical
gardens or parks (e.g. medicinal herbs, asian plants, succulents).

Regards

Markus

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

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

marc marc
In reply to this post by Jan S
Le 20.05.19 à 17:36, Jan S a écrit :
> I find camp_site:part=* somewhat complicated, too. Also, it wouldn't be
> consistent with the use of camp_site=* to describe the type of camping
> site, either.

tourism=camp_site + camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe

and if you cut the site in several parts,
camp_site:part=(camp_)pitch to describe each part

> I'd prefer tourism=camp_pitch. This also has the advantage that this key
> can be used for isolated camping pitches that are not part of a proper
> camping ground.

I find that it is precisely a defect. a camp_pitch does not define
a basic camp_site limited to a single pitch (use tourism=camp_site +
camp_site=basic for this, no need to add a part if the part=the whole
camp_site).

camp_pitch:part=* describes a part of a camp_site like building:part=*
doesn't descript a building with one-part only.
so a part always need to be in a camp_site like a building part
need to be inside a building.

but you can have a site with only one pitch and a deluxe service
or have a site with a lot of pitch but basic service,
there is no link between the number and quality
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg
I think “camp_site:part=camp_pitch” is too long.

Also,  remember that the existing tag is used for pitches within campgrounds and caravan sites.

And, the British English term is “campsite”, without a space.

The shortest option with a new key would be “camp=pitch”. 

But tourism=camp_pitch has the advantage of being in use, and it uses an existing feature key.

I don’t feel enthusiastic about creating a 4th competing tagging standard to go along with camp_site=pitch, camp_site=camp_pitch and tourism=camp_pitch

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 2:05 AM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
Le 20.05.19 à 17:36, Jan S a écrit :
> I find camp_site:part=* somewhat complicated, too. Also, it wouldn't be
> consistent with the use of camp_site=* to describe the type of camping
> site, either.

tourism=camp_site + camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe

and if you cut the site in several parts,
camp_site:part=(camp_)pitch to describe each part

> I'd prefer tourism=camp_pitch. This also has the advantage that this key
> can be used for isolated camping pitches that are not part of a proper
> camping ground.

I find that it is precisely a defect. a camp_pitch does not define
a basic camp_site limited to a single pitch (use tourism=camp_site +
camp_site=basic for this, no need to add a part if the part=the whole
camp_site).

camp_pitch:part=* describes a part of a camp_site like building:part=*
doesn't descript a building with one-part only.
so a part always need to be in a camp_site like a building part
need to be inside a building.

but you can have a site with only one pitch and a deluxe service
or have a site with a lot of pitch but basic service,
there is no link between the number and quality
_______________________________________________
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 - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

marc marc
Le 21.05.19 à 00:58, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> I don’t feel enthusiastic about creating a 4th competing tagging
> standard to go along with camp_site=pitch, camp_site=camp_pitch  
> and tourism=camp_pitch

it's an argument that makes sense.
perhaps in this case, should we start by proposing to depreciate
camp_site=pitch and camp_site=camp_pitch since these are the 2 most
problematic in the logic of tag linking

both depreciated tags would be temporarily converted into
tourism=camp_pitch but without voting on the choice of the final key,
dividing the problem in two would allow, i hope, to have almost
unanimity on the first step
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Tod Fitch


> On May 20, 2019, at 4:28 PM, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Le 21.05.19 à 00:58, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
>> I don’t feel enthusiastic about creating a 4th competing tagging
>> standard to go along with camp_site=pitch, camp_site=camp_pitch
>> and tourism=camp_pitch
>
> it's an argument that makes sense.
> perhaps in this case, should we start by proposing to depreciate
> camp_site=pitch and camp_site=camp_pitch since these are the 2 most
> problematic in the logic of tag linking
>
> both depreciated tags would be temporarily converted into
> tourism=camp_pitch but without voting on the choice of the final key,
> dividing the problem in two would allow, i hope, to have almost
> unanimity on the first step
Is there some overall agreed upon “logic of tag linking” that I’ve missed reading about?

Near as I can tell tag formation/structure/logic is all over the place, obviously evolving with time and the opinion(s) of whoever decided they needed to map a particular set of features.

If there is someplace I can read up on this “logic of tag linking”? I’d love to have a link.

Thanks!



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

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Tod Fitch
In reply to this post by marc marc


On May 20, 2019, at 4:28 PM, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:

Le 21.05.19 à 00:58, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
I don’t feel enthusiastic about creating a 4th competing tagging
standard to go along with camp_site=pitch, camp_site=camp_pitch  
and tourism=camp_pitch

it's an argument that makes sense.
perhaps in this case, should we start by proposing to depreciate
camp_site=pitch and camp_site=camp_pitch since these are the 2 most
problematic in the logic of tag linking

both depreciated tags would be temporarily converted into
tourism=camp_pitch but without voting on the choice of the final key,
dividing the problem in two would allow, i hope, to have almost
unanimity on the first step


Please excuse possible Americanisms. 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. I keep mistyping these and then correcting myself. If I’ve missed some, I hope it is still readable. This is also a rather long post, so please bear with me.

At present we seem to have at least three ways used to mark an individual tent/caravan site (pitch) within a campground (campsite or camp site).

tourism=camp_pitch [1]
camp_site=pitch [2]
camp_site=camp_pitch [3][4][5]

With respect to tourism=camp_pitch, it seems to have limited use (227 instances). I see no wiki on it at all, not even a proposal. So I don’t know if the taggers intended it to be for a place within a campsite or not. It has the unfortunate characteristic that it conflicts with tourism=camp_site so you can’t tag a site with only one place for tent/caravan with both camp_site (so it can be found at a top level by someone looking for camp sites) and camp_pitch (so you can potentially list the detailed characteristics (table, fire ring, etc.). For that reason I am very much against this.

With respect to camp_site=pitch, the argument against that in these mailing lists a while back was that “pitch” is more associated with sports playing fields so “camp pitch” was suggested. I believe this can be fully deprecated and replaced with whatever new tagging gains a consensus.

This leads us to camp_site=camp_pitch or some other not yet formally proposed tagging.

Arguments against camp_site=camp_pitch include (with my commentary):

“Problematic in the logic of tag linking”

See [6]. We are dealing with a pitch within a campsite. So camp_site=camp_pitch, camp_pitch=* (or camp_pitch:*=value) fits in this scheme. On my query about what was meant by tag linking one of the responses was:

On May 21, 2019, at 6:20 PM, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

While "key=X" and "X=type_of_X" is a common way of tagging properties
of features, there is not a standard way of tagging features that are
located within a larger feature.

There are at least 4 ways of doing this:

1) "key=X" -> "X=name_of_smaller_feature", where X is the term for the
larger feature.
Example: "allotments=plot" is used to define a specific plot within an
area of "landuse=allotments"

2) "key=X" -> "key=X_Y"
Example 1: "amenity=parking" is used for a parking lot, and
"amenity=parking_space" is used for the space to park one vehicle
within a parking lot

3) "key=yes" -> "key:namespace=yes"
Example: "building=yes" and "building:part=yes" is used to define
parts of buildings with different characteristics, eg a different
number of levels or different type of roof.

4) "key1=X" -> "key2=Y"
Two unrelated keys are used with two unrelated values.
Example: "man_made=works" should usually be within a "landuse=industrial” area

The use of “tourism=camp_site” -> “camp_site=camp_pitch” matches example 1. So while I think that this tagging does not go against good tagging syntax, others disagree.

Going down the list of negative votes on the proposal page.

“The tag is in conflict with the tag chain, according to which camp_site=* describes the type of the tourism=camp_site. I think that camp_site:part=camp_pitch would make most sense”. And “as already mentioned camp_site:part=camp_pitch makes sense. camp_site=camp_pitch does not”. I can understand this argument. I think meets the goal of the current preferred tagging syntax and should be further discussed.

“I think too this is inconsistent. The key must be in tourism=*”. See my comment above: A camp pitch is within a campsite putting it at the same level in tourism would be a mistake.

“Tag inconsistent with tag chain and general scheme”. Discussed above. It does meet the tag chain and general scheme but maybe camp_site:part=camp_pitch would fit better.

“As mentioned upside, camp_site=* was previously reviewed as a level for tourism=camp_site (among other). It shouldn't be used to described features inside the actual site. Piches, homes, toilets... and so on should have their own naming convention for sake of consistency”. That is what this proposal is attempting to do, provide a naming convention separate from camp_site to describe individual pitches within a campsite. So I don’t understand this criticism.

“Camp_site key does not fit for this use”. Again, I don’t understand this criticism. We are attempting to come up with tagging for potentially multiple pitches within a campsite.

“Camp_site is the total area, camp_pitch is a part of that, a plot/space, the plot is a single area for one tent/caravan and could have ref name/number. camp_site=camp_pitch makes no sense. A good lined up hierarchy tree is important!” I think this is a restatement of “tag inconsistent with tag chain and general scheme”.

“Tagging camp pitches is needed but I too would like to see more consistent tagging in OSM. I don't like using popularity as an argument for best practice not to mention there are only about 7.3k tags of this current proposal in use sofar. The tag amenity=parking_space from the parking proposal is an analogous example for which this proposal should be consistent with.” This promotes two associated items (parking area and specific parking space) at the same level of tagging (amenity). I am not sure I agree that this older style of tagging fits in the currently preferred name space tagging scheme.

“camp_site key does not fit for this use”. “OSM needs a great logic on tagging. It appears that this proposal brokes that logic.” And “Ok for a proper tag. Not this one.” It would be nice if a these comments had a suggested way forward.

“I do think, we need a tag for individual camp pitches, but it should more adhere to the common tagging scheme, i.e. some kind of sub-tag of tourism=camp_site”. That is the attempt.

Looking at all the responses, what is your opinion of the following tagging scheme:

Existing:
tourism=camp_site

Proposed for a pitch within a campsite:
camp_site:part=camp_pitch

It seems that camp_site:part=* is totally unused at present. This might be an advantage as we can clearly define what it means rather than guessing at some undocumented use.

Is this satisfactory for those nay voters? If not, what would be a better tag that satisfies the objections stated in the voting?

Thanks!





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

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Markus-5


sent from a phone

> On 20. May 2019, at 18:19, Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I prefer the camp_site:part=camp_pitch because the :part suffix is
> already in use in building:part=* and could become a standard suffix
> for parts of other objects, such as named parts of forests or lakes,
> numbered grave fields of cemeteries or thematic parts of botanical
> gardens or parks (e.g. medicinal herbs, asian plants, succulents).


While it somehow works for buildings where the sum of all building:parts make up the whole building, and the parts may „exist“ in the real world as concept (have a name, be functionally defined), the same concept works less for camping sites, because you won’t generally be able to divide it into parts with the sum of them making the whole campsite (many components are already tagged differently, like leisure pitches, beaches, paths, shops, bathrooms, ...). And the pitch as part of a campsite is much less a common concept in the real world. There is already the spatial and semantic relation of the pitches inside the campsite so that it is not useful to restate this in the key. camp_site:part=yes would not make a lot of sense, would it? We also have examples where the parts are classified as their own class aside the “container”, e.g. place=city and suburb, quarter, neighborhood
or amenity=bank, atm
“Things inside things” is one of the core concepts which is inherent to OpenStreetMap and making a map in general, there are no tags needed for mapping it.

Forest names (and geographic regions in general) are another issue that we have not solved thoroughly, because there are actually different types of “forests”: there are many small parts, often with names in densely populated places, which together form bigger areas with their own name (often/generally), which may form bigger parts again with a distinct name, and so on. Some names refer only to a patch of land with trees growing on them (and these can be represented well in osm), but the bigger they become, the more areas will be included where there aren’t actually trees growing. Those bigger entities aren’t “forests” in the osm sense, they are geographic regions with typically soft boundaries, for which we haven’t established any concept or convention yet. Adding a “:part” component does not solve these cases, it would again just be repeating with words what is already in the spatial structure.

On top of these points, the key
camp_site:part=camp_pitch
is inconveniently long and ugly, featuring a colon and two underscores in the same tag ;-)
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

Cheers, Martin


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

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Tod Fitch

Am Mi., 22. Mai 2019 um 06:12 Uhr schrieb Tod Fitch <[hidden email]>:
it's an argument that makes sense.
perhaps in this case, should we start by proposing to depreciate
camp_site=pitch and camp_site=camp_pitch since these are the 2 most
problematic in the logic of tag linking



+1
 
>
With respect to tourism=camp_pitch, it seems to have limited use (227 instances). I see no wiki on it at all, not even a proposal. So I don’t know if the taggers intended it to be for a place within a campsite or not. It has the unfortunate characteristic that it conflicts with tourism=camp_site so you can’t tag a site with only one place for tent/caravan with both camp_site (so it can be found at a top level by someone looking for camp sites) and camp_pitch (so you can potentially list the detailed characteristics (table, fire ring, etc.).


this could be seen as an advantage: it would by default not show those places with just one pitch and likely no services, to people doing a simple query for camp sites on a generic service, while those people which are potential users of those basic backcountry pitches will likely use a specific map optimized for hiking.

Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by Tod Fitch

On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 14:12, Tod Fitch <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please excuse possible Americanisms. 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.

& from an Aussie point of view, that term is just as confusing as it apparently is for you!

I've been going camping for over 40 years now (!) & I've never heard the term camp-pitch, before it's come up in this discussion. Yes, you "pitch camp" or "pitch a tent", but you do it on a camp site in a camping (or camp) ground, not on a camp pitch.

Marked & allocated spots in a caravan park, or camp/ing ground are "sites" eg we are booked into Site 86 in Whichever Caravan Park this weekend.

Personally, I'd prefer to get rid of the camp_pitch idea altogether & just use our established tags

tourism=camp_site (or =caravan_site) + name=, address= etc
with "all of park" details
toilets=yes/no/fee
shower=yes/no/fee - maybe hot/cold?

then for each site

ref=# / SIte #
usage=caravan/camper_trailer/tent/walk_in (some sites are reserved for large motorhomes, some are tent only etc)
vehicle_access=yes/no (can you actually drive onto the site - some you have to park in the car park & carry your tent & all your gear to the actual site)
fire=yes/no/ring/off_ground
power=yes/no
water=yes/no
sullage=yes/no
surface=grass/sand/gravel/concrete
slab=yes/no
etc

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg
While “campsite” is confusing for Americans (like myself) and Aussie’s, it is the correct British English term for what we call a “campground”, and a (camping) “pitch” is what we call a “campsite” or “tent site”.

Hence the value should have include something like “pitch”.

I suppose this is fair payback for Americans having designed most websites and programming languages without regard for  British spelling or word definitions. :-)

Joseph

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 7:21 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 14:12, Tod Fitch <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please excuse possible Americanisms. 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.

& from an Aussie point of view, that term is just as confusing as it apparently is for you!

I've been going camping for over 40 years now (!) & I've never heard the term camp-pitch, before it's come up in this discussion. Yes, you "pitch camp" or "pitch a tent", but you do it on a camp site in a camping (or camp) ground, not on a camp pitch.

Marked & allocated spots in a caravan park, or camp/ing ground are "sites" eg we are booked into Site 86 in Whichever Caravan Park this weekend.

Personally, I'd prefer to get rid of the camp_pitch idea altogether & just use our established tags

tourism=camp_site (or =caravan_site) + name=, address= etc
with "all of park" details
toilets=yes/no/fee
shower=yes/no/fee - maybe hot/cold?

then for each site

ref=# / SIte #
usage=caravan/camper_trailer/tent/walk_in (some sites are reserved for large motorhomes, some are tent only etc)
vehicle_access=yes/no (can you actually drive onto the site - some you have to park in the car park & carry your tent & all your gear to the actual site)
fire=yes/no/ring/off_ground
power=yes/no
water=yes/no
sullage=yes/no
surface=grass/sand/gravel/concrete
slab=yes/no
etc

Thanks

Graeme
_______________________________________________
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 - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

marc marc
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg
>  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.

Please do not retag features to an unapproved, undocumented tag.
Mechanical edits are discouraged, even if you are doing them by hand.

I'd be willing to make a proposal page for tourism=camp_pitch if there
is sufficient support for this tag, but it sounds like you don't
actually like this tag?

I'm not sure that there will be sufficient support for
tourism=camp_pitch to win approval. It's always hard to guess.

On 5/23/19, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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
> [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 - rejected - camp_site=camp_pitch

marc marc
Le 23.05.19 à 12:22, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
>> 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.

> Please do not retag features to an unapproved, undocumented tag.

no coherent documented tag exist for pitch&part, what do you propose ?
freeze until an approved proposal ?
some propals are outstanding since years

we hesitate to create/document new/temporary tags
for the 2 usecases discovered so far.
we thought, however, that this would add further confusion
to the confusion given the too many proposals and different
tags for the same thing.
which would result in https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png
it will not be an issue to tag them with the final schema when it exists

> Mechanical edits are discouraged, even if you are doing them by hand.

we didn't made a mechanical edits, we have loaded them,
check the context, check imagery, check other tag.
it's how 2 differents usecase have been found.

> I'd be willing to make a proposal page for tourism=camp_pitch
> it sounds like you don't actually like this tag?

right now I think the situation is too confusing
how do you decide the meaning of current tourism=camp_pitch objects?
it's impossible without reviewing a large number of them to see what
they correspond to. it's the goal of our approach. except that
we didn't just look, we improved what we thought could be easily
improved (toilets, entrances, camp_site=* approved meaning, ...)
no one imagined anyone would disapprove that...

but I'll pass on your opinion that you don't like our use
of tourism=camp_pitch until it's voted on.
we can create/modify wiki page with all the different meanings
encountered for every tag if you want, I think however that documenting
the magnitude of the problem will be an additional argument against
what seemed to be the only solution, if done step-by-step, with human
review due to the multi-meaning that currently exist in all tag/value.

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

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by marc marc


On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 09:31, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:

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 :)

Well, yes!
 
but it is a radical change to have objects that only have subtags
that exist elsewhere and no main tag describing what the object.

But all these sites / pitches are within the bounds of a camp / caravan site.

What are they likely to be confused with?

This:
ref=15
type=caravan;camper_trailer
power=yes
water=yes
sullage=yes
surface=grass
slab=yes
fire=no
inside a camp_site, is hardly going to be confused with Highway 15, a caravan shop, power supply, a river or dam & so on, is it? :-)

practical problem: counting or render or finding those objects
becomes very complicated since there is no longer any specific tag

But the main =camp_site tag "should" also say that there are 110 sites / pitches, so you could count them that way.

As for rendering, I would think that the Ref # would render as a number so that the map shows that Site 1 is here, 15 is over there & so on, & you should then be routed from the front gate along here, turn left here, right here, left here & 110 is half way along on the left side. 

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg
We cannot use the key “type=*”. This is reserved to define the type of relation, e.g. “type=multipolygon”. 

(FYI, I restarted this proposal process for camp_site=camp_pitch because I wanted to see if we could render the ref for pitches in the Openstreetmap-Carto style, but it looks like there will not be a consensus on the right tag for these features any time soon)

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 6:07 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 09:31, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:

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 :)

Well, yes!
 
but it is a radical change to have objects that only have subtags
that exist elsewhere and no main tag describing what the object.

But all these sites / pitches are within the bounds of a camp / caravan site.

What are they likely to be confused with?

This:
ref=15
type=caravan;camper_trailer
power=yes
water=yes
sullage=yes
surface=grass
slab=yes
fire=no
inside a camp_site, is hardly going to be confused with Highway 15, a caravan shop, power supply, a river or dam & so on, is it? :-)

practical problem: counting or render or finding those objects
becomes very complicated since there is no longer any specific tag

But the main =camp_site tag "should" also say that there are 110 sites / pitches, so you could count them that way.

As for rendering, I would think that the Ref # would render as a number so that the map shows that Site 1 is here, 15 is over there & so on, & you should then be routed from the front gate along here, turn left here, right here, left here & 110 is half way along on the left side. 

Thanks

Graeme
_______________________________________________
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 - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Warin
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On 22/05/19 18:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 20. May 2019, at 18:19, Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I prefer the camp_site:part=camp_pitch because the :part suffix is
>> already in use in building:part=* and could become a standard suffix
>> for parts of other objects, such as named parts of forests or lakes,
>> numbered grave fields of cemeteries or thematic parts of botanical
>> gardens or parks (e.g. medicinal herbs, asian plants, succulents).
>
> While it somehow works for buildings where the sum of all building:parts make up the whole building, and the parts may „exist“ in the real world as concept (have a name, be functionally defined), the same concept works less for camping sites, because you won’t generally be able to divide it into parts with the sum of them making the whole campsite (many components are already tagged differently, like leisure pitches, beaches, paths, shops, bathrooms, ...). And the pitch as part of a campsite is much less a common concept in the real world. There is already the spatial and semantic relation of the pitches inside the campsite so that it is not useful to restate this in the key. camp_site:part=yes would not make a lot of sense, would it? We also have examples where the parts are classified as their own class aside the “container”, e.g. place=city and suburb, quarter, neighborhood
> or amenity=bank, atm
> “Things inside things” is one of the core concepts which is inherent to OpenStreetMap and making a map in general, there are no tags needed for mapping it.
>
> Forest names (and geographic regions in general) are another issue that we have not solved thoroughly, because there are actually different types of “forests”: there are many small parts, often with names in densely populated places, which together form bigger areas with their own name (often/generally), which may form bigger parts again with a distinct name, and so on. Some names refer only to a patch of land with trees growing on them (and these can be represented well in osm), but the bigger they become, the more areas will be included where there aren’t actually trees growing. Those bigger entities aren’t “forests” in the osm sense, they are geographic regions with typically soft boundaries, for which we haven’t established any concept or convention yet. Adding a “:part” component does not solve these cases, it would again just be repeating with words what is already in the spatial structure.
>
> On top of these points, the key
> camp_site:part=camp_pitch
> is inconveniently long and ugly, featuring a colon and two underscores in the same tag ;-)
> 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

That looses a lot of information for simplicity.

A compromise?

camp:part=pitch ???

Then
pitch=caravan/trailer/tent/caravan;trailer




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12