[Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Tod Fitch <tod at fitchdesign.com> wrote:

> For example *camp_site:water=yes/no* may be the same for all
> sites/pitches within a campground and tagging it in one place, if
> appropriate, assures consistency. (The campground I was looking at when I
> started this discussion has piping to various spots and up to about 20
> years ago water was supplied. But with increasing strict water quality
> standards and decreasing manpower to maintain and test, the forest service
> simply turned off the water and now lists the campground as without water.
> Tagging the campground rather than the individual sites/pitches makes more
> sense to me in that type of situation.)


The current preferred drinking water tap approach is a node with *
amenity=drinking_water.*
In some cases a non-specific *drinking_water=yes* is added to a larger
feature like a toilet or building.

For an RV campground with water hookups at each site, I'd suggest mapping
the hookup then defining the type (e.g. electric/sewer/potable/non-potable)
outside the drinking water scheme.  An individual RV site hookup is not a
general purpose drinking water site.

-------------------------

As for the tagging scheme: some buy-in from rendering and routing groups
would really help strengthen either of the two major proposals.  What works
better for those efforts?  While we don't "tag to the rendering", we want
to have "renderable (and routable)  tagging".  This would involve making a
contact on appopriate mailing lists, and getting feedback there.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130621/890e58fa/attachment.html>