[Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

David Bannon dbannon at internode.on.net
Tue Mar 24 05:11:04 UTC 2015

OK, I'm struggling. I started answering Dave S's stuff (below) and
realised I was really arguing away the who catagory approach. Sigh.

Are we better saying -



and so on.

And just live with it like that ?  I really like the category approach
but worry that we are not going to make it work. What would need to
happen is to improve the documentation for the tourism=camp_site and,
then, maybe fill in a few missing tags. That interestingly, is where we
were some months ago and saw the spin out of sanitary_dump_station= and
waste= proposals. 


On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 07:43 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:

>  Many Alaskan campgrounds do have showers ....

Wow, I have a picture of camping in Alaska, cold !

> Martin says:
> >I don't like the idea that a "designated" camp site has to be
> non-commercial, I'd rather tag that aspect with the "fee" key.
Yes, I agree with Martin. But silly to put dollar amounts in.
fee=nominal; fee=yes; fee=no; fee=donation

> To me, and I think others agree, designated means official. Any place
> where people camp in a specially prepared environment has been
> "designated" at some point, either by the government or a business
> owner; designated to be a campground. To base an entire category on
> this term is misleading IMO.

"This spot is designated as a camping spot, now look at the other tags
to tell you what sort of camp it is."  Maybe its fee for service, maybe
its got toilets and showers. Hmm, I'm arguing to let the other tags tell
the story, not what I want to do.
> @Jan - yes, I suppose the camping areas I'm talking about could be
> category #2 if you get rid of the adjective "nominal" for the fee.
> Just say they "may be free or charge a fee" because these days camping
> fees are anything but nominal, at least in my opinion.

Here, we may commonly pay between $25 and $45 a night for a powered site
expecting to find toilets and hot showers available. The ones I consider
'nominal' will be charging anything from a coin donation up to, maybe,
$10 a night. Not much overlap there.
> I say get rid of #6 entirely. Tagging an entire state as an area where
> camping is permitted, like Alaska, is problematical at best.
Yes, agree.

More information about the Tagging mailing list