[Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Bryce Nesbitt bryce2 at obviously.com
Tue Feb 24 00:21:31 UTC 2015

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

>  If  'not supported' means they don't want it ... then I'd be against
> putting it on the map.

If the land owner objects, it should be off the map, agreed.

But in many cases camping and trails are tolerated, but neither maintained
nor condoned. They're physically present, and thus should be (and usually
are!) mapped. They won't appear on official park maps, but can appear on

"Official" "legal" camps run the gamut from hot tubs & backrubs, to three
rocks and a stream for water.
"Official" has to do with the landowner, and has nothing to do with level
of amenity.

So we need two tags: the legal status, and the amenity level.

----- ------
Recently I visited Hong Kong, and saw a large number of trails.  I headed
off the subway to
the nearest one.  It turned out to be a squatter camp trail.  On the map it
could not be distinguished from
the official park trail a half kilometer distant.  The two trails were not
all that different on the ground,
but they were VERY different in an important way that I would have
appreciated knowing in advance.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150223/9ae6cefe/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list