[Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Fri Apr 3 06:23:07 UTC 2015

On 3/04/2015 5:05 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt <bryce2 at obviously.com 
> <mailto:bryce2 at obviously.com>> wrote:
>     Scout camps ARE landmarks often, and valid destinations, even if
>     they don't offer services to the general public.
> This is not an argument to map it as tourism=camp_site, this is just a 
> argument to map it. While I agree with the latter (mapping it), I 
> wonder whether there are enough similarities with other camp sites to 
> map them as tourism=camp_site
> Right now I have the impression that every new tag has to be super 
> general and that you need to add dozens of extra tags to understand 
> what you are actually talking about. ( a bit exaggerated, I know).
> When you make a map to show all camp sites, are you interested in 
> showing the scout camps ? I doubt so.
> Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong 
> with that ?

Wrong? Nothing I can see.

Best? Another question.

Some want top down tagging. Some want tags for green sheep with 6 legs.

What is best? Without a general statement of what is preferable no one 
has any basis for a decision.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150403/5bd9a313/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list