[Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhauser at gmail.com
Thu Apr 30 15:12:31 UTC 2015


+1 on addr:unit or ref over addr:housenumber. I think ref makes more sense
than addr:unit on remote/isolated pitches (ie hike-in sites, not drive-in).

In addition, I've seen cases where individual pitches are named instead of
numbered. It's not mentioned, but to clarify, I'm assuming that would just
use "name"

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

>  On 30/04/2015 11:17 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>
>  On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:37 PM, John Willis <johnw at mac.com> wrote:
>
>>  That sounds like “tagging for the renderer” to me.
>>
>>  When rendering lags tagging behavior, there is that temptation.
>
>
> Rendering will always lag behind tagging.
>
> If tagging is to be rendered then adding another tag to have it rendered
> will lead to the original tag being ignored by renders .. Catch 22.
>
>  Also, it's more likely to be rendered if the tagging is well-defined and
sensible. If the tagging is awkwardly trying to fit into a particular
rendering, or overly complicated, it's probably not going to be used by
mappers long-term.

I think detailed renderings of campgrounds sounds like a perfect case for a
specialized map, maybe on a new map, or added to one of these:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM-based_services#Biking.2C_Geocaching.2C_Hiking.2C_Sport
So I wouldn't sweat whether it's rendered right now or not, someone is
going to scratch that itch.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150430/0dc43477/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list