[Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

David Bannon dbannon at internode.on.net
Wed Mar 25 22:01:48 UTC 2015


On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 20:42 +0000, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> 
> I really do want to keep non-designated as currently proposed. It was
> my main reason to start with the proposal. I understand it is not
> important in western countries, but it is vital in Africa and the
> Middle East. It is a site with the opportunistic blessing and amenity
> use of a hotel/ hostel, etc.

I agree Jan, these things exist in Australia too. But I have to ask, are
they really "non-designated" ?  I have used ones that sound pretty much
what you describe. I'd think of them as having been "designated" by the
land owner. Or at least loco parentis owner. 

In my category model, we are not describing anything about owner or
business arrangements, we leave that to other tags. We describe only
what is apparently there.  So, if its got toilets and water available
via the adjoining business, its 'standard'. If not, 'basic'.

David
> 
> 
> Why do we need to keep trekking? Isn't it a special case of
> unimproved? Summarized my preference is

Yes, I suspect 'trekking' is the odd one out here and might be better
dealt with in a subsequent proposal.

>       * Designated
>       * Unimproved (although I like the word Basic better)
>       * Non-designated
>       * Wild_camp_site: separate namespace tag for unimproved without
>         blessing
>         
I am uncomfortable with words like "designated", "unimproved" - they
indicate we know far too much of the history and legal status of the
site. Lets just stick to what we can see there now.

David





More information about the Tagging mailing list