[Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Mar 25 00:06:09 UTC 2015

On 25/03/2015 9:23 AM, David Bannon wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 09:42 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:11 PM, David Bannon wrote
>>          Are we better saying -
>>            tourism=camp_site
>>            toilets=yes
>>            sanitary_dump_station=yes
>>            amenity=showers
>>            fee=yes
>> Yes.
>> Because camp sites will defy categorization.
> No, sorry, I don't think that works either ! Looking at a typical
> commercial book that describes camp sites, you expect to see a list,
> maybe a long one, things like toilets, water, showers, laundary, BBQ,
> fire place and so one. Many of these are already in amenity=*. But its
> silly to do on one node or area -
> tourism=camp_site
> name=Happy Campers Rest
> amenity=bbq
> amenity=fireplace
> amenity=bench
> amenity=waste_disposal
> So, I'd need to map each as an individual node. A search of the data
> will not necessarily associate the BBQ with Happy Campers Rest Caravan
> Park. Thats just as silly.
> Someone making a map wants to see one object with these attributes so
> they can decide what to render and how to render it.

No, not a decision for the render but information for the end user .. the most important pero=son is the end user!
'Customers' first!  :-)
The map user wants to search for the closest camp sites and then select for the features they want.

On one node/area you would have

name=Happy Campers Rest

The additional required data would be the level of services/facilities available. At least that is my view.
I'd think that the services/features would be like the hotel star rating system - the more stars the better?

The Germans use Tourist (*), Standard (**), Comfort (***), First Class (****) and Luxury (*****)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_rating

Humm is there a camp site rating system too?
The Americans have some http://camping.about.com/cs/campgroundreviews/a/ratingsystems.htm

For OSM camp_sites? These words would get away from 'official', 'designated' ...
  and convey some idea?  None(*), Basic (**), Comfort (***), First Class (****), Luxury(*****) ?
Or maybe the 'None' gets no stars?
None( ), Basic (*), Standard (**), Comfort (***), First Class (****), Luxury(*****) ?

None= nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle.
Basic = None + a toilet
Standard = Basic + water
Comfort = Standard + shower
First Class = Comfort + cloths washing (+ power?)
Luxury =Comfort + camp kitchen/swimming pool/restaurant

There is a similar proposal for hotels
I think it failed due to an expectation that the data needs to be upto date.. and that won't be done on the OSM ..
the truth is that the OSM is upto date .. look how fast changes are made to roads when they change.
I expect the same for other features, where outdated data is found mappers update it.
Get off your unrealistic expectations of instantaneous correct data only being within OSM!
Errors occur, data does get out of date. But it gets 'fixed' fairly quickly.
Denying data entry that indicates what the end users want undermines the usefullness of OSM.

More information about the Tagging mailing list