<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi,<br>
I have used the LPI Base Map to add rest areas in NSW. <br>
<br>
Halfway through this I though on my personal preferences for rests
areas;<br>
a toilet<br>
separation from the road - by distance and/or trees<br>
shelter - more trees?<br>
<br>
So I have added those features from that point on, using imagery.
Some buildings appear to be toilets so I left notes on those. My
experience so far suggest the following;<br>
<br>
<u>Campsites</u><br>
I am yet to edit those campsites that contain in part of the name
'Rest Area' or 'RA' ... this needs to be done with some care ..
some of them are functionally camp sites .. despite the name. <br>
Where I asses them as rest areas I'll add the tag
'camping:caravan=yes' to reflect the past tagging. <br>
Where I asses them as camp sites for all I'll add the tag
'tourism=campsite' (if it already exists I'll leave it alone) . <br>
I think that is acceptable? <br>
<br>
Some of them are a fair way away from where they should be ..
primarily those containing 'RA' and usually
'createdby=campsaustralia'. Where I found those in close proximity
to existing but correctly placed campsites I have deleted them. <br>
I may well target those 'RA' to see if they are correctly placed
(for example not in the middle of an agricultural research
centres ploughed field - Temora) or duplicated by a more correctly
placed feature. <br>
<br>
<u>Picnic Areas</u><br>
I have seen some of these with the name 'Rest Area' too .. those
can be tagged with 'highway=rest area' .. but leave the picnic
tags in place .. as I don't think they cause any errors in the use
of the area?<br>
<br>
<u>Truck Parking</u><br>
Some places have had the name 'Truck Parking' applied to them
(service roads, parking areas and rest areas too). Not good. <br>
My confusion here is does this mean truck only? I think other
users may have the same issue. <br>
And some rest areas have a real name, so leading to this data
being removed. <br>
The tag hgv=yes could be applied to the roads and rest areas to
indicate this, and it does not mean motor_vehicle=no.<br>
For parking areas the tag capacity can be used -
capacity:hgv=no/yes/number <br>
<br>
<br>
Once again I ask for your thoughts and ideas? <br>
Note: I have learnt (at my cost) to be careful when mapping. I am
a good deal less cautious on lists and the wiki - sometimes I like
to 'stir the pot'. <br>
<br>
<br>
On 03-May-17 10:33 AM, David Bannon wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ad7dabc9-b539-b4c1-4e9f-5df79304a0ea@internode.on.net">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Warin, I agree with you in theory. I almost never camp at a site
without a toilet because such camp sites are sometimes in a
disgusting state. However, when mapping, we should not apply our
particular moral beliefs, fact is lots of people do stay at such
sites. If its legal and practical to do so, we should so map. We
should not be trying to enforce our beliefs via OSM. <br>
</blockquote>
Agreed.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ad7dabc9-b539-b4c1-4e9f-5df79304a0ea@internode.on.net">
<br>
Again, I will remind you that the distinction between tents,
camper trailers, campers, caravans, mobile homes is one of degree.
Pick any two spots on that spectrum and I will show you a rig that
can fit between them. <br>
<br>
(Sorry I have been out of this discussion for some time, we are
away camping, down the deep southwest of Tasmania there is very
little communications ....)<br>
<br>
David</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>