Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
195 messages Options
1234 ... 10
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Jan van Bekkum
Please have a look at this proposal.

Regards,

Jan van Bekkum

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

Re: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

brycenesbitt
A strongly related discussion:

tagging the difference between an official trail,
and shortcut / use trail / squatter trail.

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

Re: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Tod Fitch
In reply to this post by Jan van Bekkum
Not sure that "for a fee" should always be associated with an established campsite. For example, I know of several campgrounds run by the Forest Service here that have toilet (outhouse) facilities, benches and tables as well as fire rings that are available on a first come, first serve basis and have no fee. I will admit that due to funding issues that type of campground is becoming rare in my area (many of them are being turned over to concessionaires and are having fees added), but some non-fee developed/established campgrounds still exist.

Cheers,
Tod

On Feb 23, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Jan van Bekkum wrote:

Please have a look at this proposal.

Regards,

Jan van Bekkum
_______________________________________________
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: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

sdoerr
In reply to this post by Jan van Bekkum
Just to say that there is no such thing as 'a camping' or 'campings'. 'Camping' is a non-count noun in English, denoting an activity, not a place.

Steve

On 23/02/2015 17:27, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
Please have a look at this proposal.

Regards,

Jan van Bekkum


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




This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com



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

Re: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

David Bannon-2
In reply to this post by Jan van Bekkum
Jan, I am afraid I would have to disagree. Reading your text, the
distinguishing feature seems to be the fee ?  Here in Australia, there
are very many camp sites, often reasonably formal ones that don't charge
a fee.

They typically don't provide a lot of facilities but are very popular
with caravan and the occasional tent camper. A good percentage have
drinking quality water and toilets available.

While many are "in the bush" we do see a number of smaller, remote towns
establish such free camp site to attract visitors who will spend money
in their town.

To tag them as wild_camp would be a misnomer IMHO. They are sometimes
described as "free camps". The word "free" is used as much as in "free
speech" as it is in "free beer".

But I do like the idea of a category of camp site. Makes a lot of sense.
Maybe the solution is to add my category  to your list ?

David


On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 17:27 +0000, Jan van Bekkum wrote:

> Please have a look at this proposal.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Jan van Bekkum
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Warin
The present tagging of camp sites can (if tagged) provide discrimination/distinction between those that charge a fee and those that don't.

Jan, think more about what your trying to achieve? I don't think it is about the fee .. but about the specialisation of the site? It is going to be difficult to put into words... Wild, informal ... primitive... vs organised, formal ?  I'd not distinguish between a camp site that is only a camp site and a camp site that is associated with a hotel/pub/motel. The location of the two on the map would give you that idea?

Don't worry about it being rendered .. just the tagging. Get that right first.


On 24/02/2015 8:37 AM, David Bannon wrote:
Jan, I am afraid I would have to disagree. Reading your text, the
distinguishing feature seems to be the fee ?  Here in Australia, there
are very many camp sites, often reasonably formal ones that don't charge
a fee.

They typically don't provide a lot of facilities but are very popular
with caravan and the occasional tent camper. A good percentage have
drinking quality water and toilets available.

While many are "in the bush" we do see a number of smaller, remote towns
establish such free camp site to attract visitors who will spend money
in their town.

To tag them as wild_camp would be a misnomer IMHO. They are sometimes
described as "free camps". The word "free" is used as much as in "free
speech" as it is in "free beer".

But I do like the idea of a category of camp site. Makes a lot of sense.
Maybe the solution is to add my category  to your list ?

David


On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 17:27 +0000, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
Please have a look at this proposal.


Regards,


Jan van Bekkum
_______________________________________________
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: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

brycenesbitt
Forget the fee.


What about "official" vs. "unofficial".
A campsite supported by the landowner may be fee or not.

A habitually used camp spot may have a home on OSM, but should be
marked as "not supported by the landowner or land manager".
Same for unofficial trails.

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

Re: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Warin
On 24/02/2015 9:13 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Forget the fee.


What about "official" vs. "unofficial".
A campsite supported by the landowner may be fee or not.

A habitually used camp spot may have a home on OSM, but should be
marked as "not supported by the landowner or land manager".
Same for unofficial trails.

Define 'unofficial'?

I know of one case where the landowner is quite happy for people to camp on his property .. but the local council is not. Thus I can not longer camp there.. I no longer go there .. so the local business and through them the local council  loose my business.

If  'not supported' means they don't want it ... then I'd be against putting it on the map.


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

Re: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

David Bannon-2
In reply to this post by brycenesbitt
On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 14:13 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> Forget the fee.

> What about "official" vs. "unofficial".
> A campsite supported by the landowner may be fee or not.
>
Not so sure. The different types of camp site Jan is trying to identify
are very different. Many people have quite strong preferences in this
space.

Paraphrasing Jan and extending a bit we have a number of official ones -

Commercial Camp Sites - A fee, good facilities. Formal, Crowded. Usually
defined 'Pitches', as many as possible. Someone in charge.

Free Camping Site - No (or nominal) fee, informal, some facilities (?),
sometimes limited length of stay. Community feel, self managed. Better
space between users. Tend to be used by caravan and motor home people.
Few tents. Sometimes 'hosted' by some other body, a hotel, local
government, land owner.

Wild Camp - Remote, usually no facilities, maybe in a designated area.
More tents and swags than caravans and motor homes. Pitches often
isolated from each other. Typically associated with National or State
Parks. Sometimes a fee.

Hmm, not really happy with those categories, some cross over.

> A habitually used camp spot may have a home on OSM, but should be
> marked as "not supported by the landowner or land manager".
> Same for unofficial trails.

Yes I agree. Depending on where you are in the world, such things are
more or less acceptable.

David



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

Re: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

David Bannon-2
In reply to this post by Warin
On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 09:28 +1100, Warin wrote:
> .....
>
> If  'not supported' means they don't want it ... then I'd be against
> putting it on the map.

I am loath to say it (again) as I know I'll be bashed for it, but...

I think the test need to be, will a map reader want the information we
are putting in there ? And (sigh) are we putting in data that can be
rendered or used in some way ? Yes, I know, I'm evil, mapping for the
render.

But all through my career, I have emphasised, "is what I am doing useful
to the end user". If not, its a waste of time.

David


_______________________________________________
> 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: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

AlaskaDave
How about camp_site=designated, camp_site=nondesignated, camp_site=wild or free, etc.? One could expand on that with tags like camp_site=commercial also.  The fee=yes/no tag takes care of the money part and access=public/private/customers the access part.

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 5:44 AM, David Bannon <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 09:28 +1100, Warin wrote:
> .....
>
> If  'not supported' means they don't want it ... then I'd be against
> putting it on the map.

I am loath to say it (again) as I know I'll be bashed for it, but...

I think the test need to be, will a map reader want the information we
are putting in there ? And (sigh) are we putting in data that can be
rendered or used in some way ? Yes, I know, I'm evil, mapping for the
render.

But all through my career, I have emphasised, "is what I am doing useful
to the end user". If not, its a waste of time.

David


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



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



--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

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

Re: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

brycenesbitt
In reply to this post by Warin
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
If  'not supported' means they don't want it ... then I'd be against putting it on the map. 

If the land owner objects, it should be off the map, agreed.

But in many cases camping and trails are tolerated, but neither maintained nor condoned. They're physically present, and thus should be (and usually are!) mapped. They won't appear on official park maps, but can appear on OSM.

"Official" "legal" camps run the gamut from hot tubs & backrubs, to three rocks and a stream for water.
"Official" has to do with the landowner, and has nothing to do with level of amenity.

So we need two tags: the legal status, and the amenity level.


----- ------
Recently I visited Hong Kong, and saw a large number of trails.  I headed off the subway to
the nearest one.  It turned out to be a squatter camp trail.  On the map it could not be distinguished from
the official park trail a half kilometer distant.  The two trails were not all that different on the ground,
but they were VERY different in an important way that I would have appreciated knowing in advance.


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

Re: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

David Bannon-2
In reply to this post by AlaskaDave
On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 06:46 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> How about camp_site=designated, camp_site=nondesignated,
> camp_site=wild or free, etc.? One could expand on that with tags like
> camp_site=commercial also.  The fee=yes/no tag takes care of the money
> part and access=public/private/customers the access part.
>
Yep, agree.

Its about agreeing on a handful of tags for camp_site. 'Designated' is a
good term. Better than "official" IMHO. I'd want to see "commercial"
there too.

Clearly better to use existing fee= to cover that aspect.

David



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

Re: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Warin

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 24/02/2015 9:13 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Forget the fee.


What about "official" vs. "unofficial".
A campsite supported by the landowner may be fee or not.

A habitually used camp spot may have a home on OSM, but should be
marked as "not supported by the landowner or land manager".
Same for unofficial trails.

Define 'unofficial'?

Not speaking for Bryce, however, I could see a usage case for something like this.  For example, in my 20s I used to go 4x4 in Mt. Hood National Forest all the time.  And throughout the MHNF, especially once you crossed the Cascade divide at roughly the meridian of Mt. Hood's peak, and were therefore also on the dry side of the range, people can and do camp wherever they damn well please.  There's hundreds, if not thousands, of tiny, unofficial camp sites not associated with any campground that have no facilities (except for perhaps a fire pit and a wide spot to unload your truck and pitch a tent), and due to the fact you're having to hump in your own water, hump out your own trash, and dig your own latrine, no fee.  The Forest Service doesn't really know where they are or keep track of them beyond the collective knowledge of the USFS Rangers, they're just there because enough people have camped in the same spot.


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

Re: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Jan van Bekkum
Thanks for all comments.

I would like to throw another issue in before I update the proposal with the recommendations all of you made.

What to do with places where one cannot camp? I have run in many situations where it would be really useful to have those on the map. I am thinking of the following situations:
  • A camping used to exist at the place but stopped business;
  • A hotel owner offered camping on his premises, but stopped doing so;
  • Police has chased away people who tried to wild camp at the location;
  • Campers have been robbed at the location;
  • Camping is not allowed, because it is in a protected area.
Any suggestions?

Regards,

Jan

On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 5:25:02 AM Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 24/02/2015 9:13 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Forget the fee.


What about "official" vs. "unofficial".
A campsite supported by the landowner may be fee or not.

A habitually used camp spot may have a home on OSM, but should be
marked as "not supported by the landowner or land manager".
Same for unofficial trails.

Define 'unofficial'?

Not speaking for Bryce, however, I could see a usage case for something like this.  For example, in my 20s I used to go 4x4 in Mt. Hood National Forest all the time.  And throughout the MHNF, especially once you crossed the Cascade divide at roughly the meridian of Mt. Hood's peak, and were therefore also on the dry side of the range, people can and do camp wherever they damn well please.  There's hundreds, if not thousands, of tiny, unofficial camp sites not associated with any campground that have no facilities (except for perhaps a fire pit and a wide spot to unload your truck and pitch a tent), and due to the fact you're having to hump in your own water, hump out your own trash, and dig your own latrine, no fee.  The Forest Service doesn't really know where they are or keep track of them beyond the collective knowledge of the USFS Rangers, they're just there because enough people have camped in the same spot.

_______________________________________________
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: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

AlaskaDave

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Jan van Bekkum <[hidden email]> wrote:
What to do with places where one cannot camp?

Sure

camp_site=prohibited or camp_site=no  [for an icon: a tent with a slash through it :-) ]

or even

camp_site=disused


--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

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

Re: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

David Bannon-2
In reply to this post by Jan van Bekkum
On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 06:15 +0000, Jan van Bekkum wrote:

>
> What to do with places where one cannot camp?

Thats hard Jan, in a way by specifying a spot you cannot camp, it sort
of implies you can camp everywhere else. Thats impractical. But your
examples mostly focus on what were once campsites and are now not. So is
it camp_site=closed (or disused or similar) ?

I guess the renderers would need to trap that particular camp_site= and
it has the potential to confuse. So, I'd tend to just not map it to be
honest.

David

> I have run in many situations where it would be really useful to have
> those on the map. I am thinking of the following situations:
>       * A camping used to exist at the place but stopped business;
>       * A hotel owner offered camping on his premises, but stopped
>         doing so;
>       * Police has chased away people who tried to wild camp at the
>         location;
>       * Campers have been robbed at the location;
>       * Camping is not allowed, because it is in a protected area.
> Any suggestions?
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Jan
>
> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 5:25:02 AM Paul Johnson <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>         On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Warin <[hidden email]>
>         wrote:
>        
>                 On 24/02/2015 9:13 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>                
>                 > Forget the fee.
>                 >
>                 >
>                 > What about "official" vs. "unofficial".
>                 > A campsite supported by the landowner may be fee or not.
>                 >
>                 > A habitually used camp spot may have a home on OSM, but should be
>                 > marked as "not supported by the landowner or land manager".
>                 > Same for unofficial trails.
>                
>                 Define 'unofficial'?
>        
>        
>         Not speaking for Bryce, however, I could see a usage case for
>         something like this.  For example, in my 20s I used to go 4x4
>         in Mt. Hood National Forest all the time.  And throughout the
>         MHNF, especially once you crossed the Cascade divide at
>         roughly the meridian of Mt. Hood's peak, and were therefore
>         also on the dry side of the range, people can and do camp
>         wherever they damn well please.  There's hundreds, if not
>         thousands, of tiny, unofficial camp sites not associated with
>         any campground that have no facilities (except for perhaps a
>         fire pit and a wide spot to unload your truck and pitch a
>         tent), and due to the fact you're having to hump in your own
>         water, hump out your own trash, and dig your own latrine, no
>         fee.  The Forest Service doesn't really know where they are or
>         keep track of them beyond the collective knowledge of the USFS
>         Rangers, they're just there because enough people have camped
>         in the same spot.
>        
>        
>         _______________________________________________
>         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: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by David Bannon-2

2015-02-23 23:44 GMT+01:00 David Bannon <[hidden email]>:
And (sigh) are we putting in data that can be
rendered or used in some way ? Yes, I know, I'm evil, mapping for the
render.


every information we are putting could be rendered somehow, but rendering is not the only way to make use of the data. For special attributes like these it is more likely they can be used in search (e.g. give me all informal campsites in this area), or be displayed at request (e.g. click on POI an get detailed information).

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Paul Johnson-3

2015-02-24 5:23 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson <[hidden email]>:
they're just there because enough people have camped in the same spot.


+0,9
actually people (if not completely ignorant) tend to camp in spots that are suitable to do so. Those will not be the only possibility, naturally, but they will typically provide good conditions (view, even terrain, enough space, protected from wind and weather, sunny / shady, accessible, ...), so even if those spots are not designated for camping but only put into existence by usage, knowing their location might still be useful.

We could be using the "informal" modifier for places like this, which I use on paths as well.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal

Just "informal=yes" together with tourism=camp_site doesn't sound right though, I'd probably use something different as main tag to stronger distinguish these features, e.g. leisure=camp_spot or tourism=camp_spot to make clear it is a smaller place. When there is a recognizable and reasonably secure spot to light a fire you could add additional feature like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dfirepit

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Jan van Bekkum
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Jan van Bekkum <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks for all comments.

I would like to throw another issue in before I update the proposal with the recommendations all of you made.

What to do with places where one cannot camp? I have run in many situations where it would be really useful to have those on the map. I am thinking of the following situations:
  • A camping used to exist at the place but stopped business;
No longer a camp site, find some other tag. 
  • A hotel owner offered camping on his premises, but stopped doing so;
Not a camp site. 
  • Police has chased away people who tried to wild camp at the location;
Obviously not a campsite. 
  • Campers have been robbed at the location;
May actually be a campsite, though if you want to call it not a campsite, this really eliminates damn near all camping within 100 miles of Eugene, Salem and Portland, plus Crater Lake National Park.
  • Camping is not allowed, because it is in a protected area.
Also not a campsite. 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
1234 ... 10