[Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[Warin]

On 3/04/2015 9:27 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote:

>   
> Looking at long-term OSM developments one wonders if such a classification shouldn't replace the current key=value structure: in almost all cases of main tags the key information is redundant - in tourism=hotel "tourism" doesn't give any additional information, because there are no other keys that go with the value hotel; a renderer still may have a lookup table that links hotel, motel, ... to the category tourism, but that information can stay outside the OSM database. It even gives confusion (refugee camps tagged as tourism=camp_site is not correct; the ongoing discussion about shop=storage_rental or amenity=storage_rental mainly leads to confusion, just "storage_rental" should be sufficient.

Not a good example. How is the render/user to chose between the "shop' storage_rental  and the "amenity" storage_rental ? Personal .. it is a shop.

If the camp_site information 'tourist', 'scout', 'refugee' etc is outside OSM then the render/user has no hope of determining which it is.

Should camp_site be moved to amenity? With camp_customer=tourist/scout/member/refugee ...

Some could say that student accommodation run by universities are simply hotels .. but not for tourists.

There are a fair few issues that arise when you try to get the logic of OSM. Precedence of shop key over amenity for me. But that is not stated anywhere in OSM.

Let us keep the end user in sight ..

One set have a GPS .. that has a search function that likes things classified a certain way thus the key structure?

Another set have a map .. and they want symbols on it to represent things..

Another set have both the above..

What suits them?

> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:10 AM Bryce Nesbitt <bryce2 at obviously.com  <mailto:bryce2 at obviously.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Colin Smale<colin.smale at xs4all.nl  <mailto:colin.smale at xs4all.nl>>  wrote:
>
>         At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable right of access supported by law.
>
>     Permissive implies something far different to me.  It means that I can walk onto the property without prior arrangement, and chances are nobody will hassle me.
>
>     Permissive is used quite frequently for objects that are nominally private, but habitually used by the public.
>
>     An fine example is a particular local rock park, or at least what looks like a park.   It's not city owned, it's fully private,
>
>     and correctly tagged access=permissive.
>
>     The distinction between "open to any member of the public with funds to pay" and "held in public trust" is somewhat murky in OSM.  The "held in public trust" lands can and do charge fees, exclude non-payers, and enforce compliance with rules.
>
>       Also murky is proper tagging for "open to members only, but membership applications are available to members of the public" access=members is not established.
>
Public things are closed to the public from time to time .. visiting 'dignitaries' can close major roads and cause lots of disruption to the public. Same with museums, art galleries, parks. So even if 'public' it may not be open all the time to the public.

I think that regional variations will confuse these words .. so either 'we' need to accept that or define them within OSM. Eitehr way they will still be 'misinterpreted' by mappers.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150403/4a569960/attachment.html>