[Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbekkum at gmail.com
Wed Mar 25 07:34:01 UTC 2015

Before I update the proposal let me try to summarize where we stand:

   1. There are three main categories of camp_sites: designated campsites,
   non-designated campsites and wild camps. Non-designated campsites are
   important for countries without a camping culture such as Ethiopia;
   2. All designated campsites have in common that they have been set up to
   camp and that you are allowed to camp there. We have discussed a further
   subclassification of the designated campsites in (1) standard campsites
   with "more"  facilities, (2) basic campsites with few facilities and (3)
   trekking campsites. Also a star system with even more levels came up. The
   perception what should go in which category depends on the place in the
   world as well as personal experience and interest. We came up with a draft
   list of minimal requirements for the standard campsite. That list could
   develop to the criterion to separate these subclasses;
   3. The proposed definition of the basic campsite is very close to the
   existing tourism=caravan_site;
   4. A more detailed description of a campsite requires many more
   attributes, some of which exist such as (internet access), some of which
   have been proposed a few years ago (see
   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site) but
   never reached the voting stage and some of which are completely new. The
   current proposal does not address these attribute tags;
   5. No clarity exists how we best can handle the potentially many
   amenities that came with a campsite: amenity=aaa;bbb;ccc under the
   tourism=camp_site tage or a site relation with a node for each amenity. The
   latter approach has been in the proposal from the beginning;
   6. A new namespace tag should be defined for the wild camp. It
   depreciates impromptu=yes;
   7. In some situations large areas have been identified where parking is
   allowed, but without specific provisions for camping (for example in a park
   where it is allowed to camp anywhere at least 200m from the lake). This
   situation should be removed from the proposal as it is not really a campsite

So the main questions to the group:

   1. Do we want the subclassification of the designated campsites in the
   2. Do we want to include ideas for new attributes in this proposal?

Ad 1: I am still in favour of the subclassification. When you are
travelling you will be aware of regional differences (I know how an Kenyan
campsite typically differs from a German one) and if the classification is
too difficult a high level of detailing is possible with attribute tags.
Before I am off to Africa again I'll download all campsite related raw
data. I would hope that the classes and subclasses would be rendered
differently and that I get all additional details from the raw list. I
would also hope that special interest sites like iOverlander would show all
details I am looking for.

Ad 2: I oppose the definition of new attributes in this proposal as each of
them ears a separate discussion if needed. I do not want to mix the

Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,

*Jan van Bekkum*

​Before I update the proposal ​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150325/dac46c70/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list