[Tagging] proposal - camp_site=

David Bannon dbannon at internode.on.net
Thu Apr 23 11:40:30 UTC 2015

On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 15:16 +0900, johnw wrote:

> 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. 
You will have to help me here John, I don't quite see what you are
trying to achieve. Here in AU it is, sort of, legal to camp anywhere
that is not private property and not declared "no camping".

I see camp_site= used only where there is some substantial legal basis,
(where that is unclear, its camp_type=).  

* In countries/places where the default is to allow camping, no sign or
official endorsement is needed, just lack of a sign saying "no
* In other countries/places, where camping is not allowed unless its so
stated, we'd need to see that statement.

So, the term, 'legal' does have a slightly different meaning here
depending on where you are. But if we try and define it too tightly, we
may well end up excluding some local variation. Not sure thats a good

Would it work better if we added a small block that talks about just
that, how 'legal' has that slightly different meaning ? That block would
be a good place to say camp_type might be a better tag when the legal
status is unclear or undefined ?


> I’m sure this will come up with other taggers as well.
> 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. 
> Javbw
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

More information about the Tagging mailing list