[Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

Marc Gemis marc.gemis at gmail.com
Fri Mar 27 08:20:41 UTC 2015


Apply 3 in case all amenities fall in 1 area.
Apply 4 in case they are in separate areas.

Use 1 only in a first iteration when no more details are known.
don't like 2 at all :-)

I think camp sites are no different that large factories, schools,
universities etc. in this respect.


regards

m

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Jan van Bekkum <jan.vanbekkum at gmail.com>
wrote:

> This is a spinoff of a discussion that was started in the mail trail about
> the proposal for camp_site=* that is currently open for comments. I would
> like to limit this discussion to facilities for the entire campground, not
> individual pitches. Similar questions will apply to other situations than
> campsites.
>
> Certain amenities that are offered with campgrounds have their own
> namespace key. Examples are restaurant, bar, shop, shower. Others like
> toilets and internet can be attributes under tourism=camp_site.
>
> Let's take as an example a campsite with restaurant and shower.
> For tagging a restaurant plus showers that belong to a campground
> different approaches can be chosen:
>
>    1. The node or area tourism=camp_site gets one attribute
>    amenity=restaurant;showers.
>    Advantage: (1) evident that shower and restaurant belong to
>    campground, (2) no new tag definitions needed
>    Disadvantages: (1) additional attributes for individual amenities
>    (like opening_hours=* not possible, (2) difficult to render
>    2. New attributes are created such as restaurant=yes, showers=hot,
>    restaurant:opening_hours=*
>    Advantage: (1) evident that shower and restaurant belong to
>    campground, (2) attributes for individual amenities possible
>    Disadvantages: (1) duplication of tag definitions for the same object
>    (amenity=shower and shower=hot), (2) difficult to render
>    3. Separate nodes for campground and amenities
>    Advantages: (1) no new tag definitions needed, (2) attributes per
>    amenity straightforward, (3) no rendering issues
>    Disadvantages: (1) not evident that campground and amenities belong
>    together, (2) placing of nodes incorrect if layout of camping area is not
>    known
>    4. Separate nodes for campground and amenities connected in a site
>    relation
>    Advantages: (1) no new tag definitions needed, (2) attributes per
>    amenity straightforward, (3) no rendering issues, (4) evident that
>    campground and amenities belong together, (5) acceptable rendering even if
>    relation isn't properly handled by rendering software
>    Disadvantages: (1) placing of nodes incorrect if layout of camping
>    area is not known, (2) use of relations felt to be difficult by some
>    mappers.
>
> All in all I personally prefer option 4.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jan van Bekkum
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150327/2223b9b6/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list