[Tagging] Tagging detail on Rest Areas

[Warin]

On 28-Apr-17 09:46 AM, Warin wrote:
> On 27-Apr-17 01:43 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>> do we need the same tags for motorhomes ?
>
> Off topic. They get a mention on the  caravan_site wiki page. I think 
> they are represented by caravan at this time.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site
>
>
>> I recently start seeing rest areas where you have to pay to stay
>> overnight, so should we add "fee" to your yes/no choices ?
>
> Off topic. Something like fee:conditional=yes @(sunset-sunrise); no 
> @(sunrise-sunset) ?
>
>>
>> m.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have come up with some detail tagging for rest areas but want to 
>>> get some
>>> oversight on it and help with one aspect.
>>>
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Drest_area
>>>
>>> Easy(?) Details
>>>
>>> Some of these have time limits - easy enough to use a conditional 
>>> max stay
>>> tag
>>>
>>>   rest_area:condition:maxstay=20
>>>
>>> Stops people 'camping' over a long period.
>>>
>>> Restricted to HGV use only, use access tags
>>>
>>>   access=no with hgv=yes
>>>
>>> More difficult detail
>>>
>>> One I am having problems with, where they can be used for 'camping' 
>>> with a
>>> caravan/camper-van (but probably not a tent).
>>>
>>> rest_area:camping=caravan
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> rest_area:camping:caravan=yes
>>>
>>> would convey the meaning .. but is it a 'good' tag that would allow for
>>> other things and follow other tagging methods?
>>>
>>> caravan=yes could simply mean access and not convey the camping 
>>> aspect? Note
>>> the max stay would still apply (if there).
>>>
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on tagging these features for rest areas?
>
> On 27-Apr-17 11:18 AM, André Pirard wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>      Your questions show that there is no OSM formal definition of the
>>      usage of name space.
>>
>>      I once sketched one, a key of which is rules to make a canonical
>>      representation of the tags.
>>
>>      It says that for the main tag (the one representing the object (vs
>>      attributes))
>>
>>      highway=rest_area canonically means highway:rest_area=yes
>>
>>      and that attribute tags append to that.
>>
>>      So, your examples become
>>
>>      highway:rest_area:rest_area:camping=caravan
>>
>>      which in its canonical form is
>>      highway:rest_area:rest_area:camping:caravan=yes
>>
>>      obviously, one rest_area is too much and it must be:
>>
>>      camping=caravan ==> highway:rest_area:camping:caravan=yes
>>
>>      camping:caravan=yes ==> highway:rest_area:camping:caravan=yes
>>
>>      same canonical representation but allowing other attributes of
>>      camping than caravan.
>>
>>      camping=yes (attribute of rest_area) would mean that camping is
>>      allowed
>>
>>      caravan=yes (attribute of rest_area) would mean that the area 
>> can be
>>      used by caravans
>>
>>      (but an access=* would be the normal way to do it)
>>
>>      camping=caravan=yes would mean that the caravans can be used for
>>      camping
>>
>>
>>      I hope I made no mistake.
>
> Ok .. so
>
> camping:caravan=yes would be ok.
>
> A wrinkle is the caravan_site key/value
>
> I think this could be used in place of the camping:caravan=yes
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site
>
> However it is a key/value itself and that could confuse renders as to 
> what is the primary key/value.
>
> so
>
> highway=rest_area
>
> caravan_site=yes
>
> could be a better way to go?

Some American stores allow camping in their parking areas ... how is 
that tagged?


>>
>>      Well, it's risky writing this.
>>
>>      Someone may come down on me again to scold me and say : "we" do not
>>      do that.
>>
>>      Very logically not saying who is "we".
>>
>>      That's apparently not you.
>
> I try to say things about things rather than people. People have all 
> sorts of ideas .. which is what I'm after.
>
> But if 'we' start talking about people they can get upset with 'us' .. 
> and that is not what anyone is after here.
>
>>
>>
>>      BTW, a rest_area can be just some space beside a road.
>>
>>      It is not a parking but it can be used to momentarily stop out of
>>      the traffic.
>>
>>      Right?
>
> Correct .. but I would put it this way, in a very simplistic way;
>
> Parking is when you stop (park) to leave your vehicle and do something 
> else - shopping, work, play.
>
> A 'rest area' is where you stop (park) to do nothing (rest).
>
>