[Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[Tod Fitch]

> On May 1, 2015, at 5:05 PM, David Bannon <dbannon at internode.on.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Tod, nice work but I am concerned about the syntax you have chosen for
> two reasons.
> 
> 1. Given that it was agreed that the larger site is the camp_site and
> there are pitch within the camp_site (UK terminology), then
> camp_site=camp_site_pitch is an oxymoron, as a term it does not make
> sense.
> 

Page is named camp site pitch, to indicate we are not talking about a soccer pitch, etc. The proposed tag uses “camp_pitch”. I guess the page could be renamed to campground pitch but I would expect that if the tagging is agreed to the content would be moved to be in the camp site page of the wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site.

(I guess I should look into how one properly can rename a wiki page. . .)


> 2. There is currently a proposal under voting using camp-site= in a
> different way.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site
> 
> This proposal is entirely consistent with the pitch proposal except for
> the naming issue.  Or are you suggesting camp_site_pitch be added to the
> list of possible values for camp_site=  ?  :-(
> 

I guess there could be a issue on naming. The http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site page as I understand it would cover the entire area of the campground while I am trying to address the individual pitches within. What do you suggest?

> Now, personally, I did not like using camp_site as meaning the whole
> camp ground but took the advice that we should use UK terms. 
> 
> I would have preferred "camp_ground" and set up camp on a "camp_site".
> Bryce raised the issue of usage of camp_site=pitch, that indicates to me
> that others also think of a camp site as that one caravan structure. But
> we are, apparently, locked into UK terms.
> 
> Tod, think you also need to put the proposed tag into context. It should
> be used only in association with tourism=camp_site or
> tourism=caravan_site ?

I haven’t been in a RV/caravan only type campground but my impression is there is a pretty big overlap between the tagging of individual pitches within the two. I think it would be nice if the detail mapping of the two were the same or at least similar enough that mappers and data consumers could easily deal with both.

I’ve suggested camp_site=camp_pitch to indicate the location of the pitch but that would imply it is specific to tourism=camp_site and, as you point out, confusing with the proposed camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe applied to the whole area.

Suggestions for this? Perhaps simply camp_pitch=yes to be used in both tourism=camp_site and tourism=caravan_site?

Thank you for your comments!
Tod


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1868 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150501/d54b5628/attachment.bin>