<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 23, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Jan van Bekkum <<a href="mailto:jan.vanbekkum@gmail.com" class="">jan.vanbekkum@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">that have not been defined as campground, but that are used as such for different reasons.</span></div></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">That’s why I thought " informal yet legal spots" would be good wording to cover this, and maybe link over to the camp_type proposal here - because with the wording for basic, the first thing I thought about was the legality or designation of the spot, thinking it would influence the camp_site= level - when it fact it is all inside the camp_type proposal. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’m sure this will come up with other taggers as well.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think camp_type=non_designated + camp_site=basic will be used together quite frequently, so reminding people of that is pretty important - it lets voters know why these two proposals go together well. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Javbw</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>