[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Wed Apr 10 13:30:55 UTC 2019

It mostly looks good, avoiding the over-namespacing of at least one of
the earlier proposals.

Should we consider clarifying that isolated sites that support only a
single party may/may not be tagged with camp_pitch?  I'm comfortable
with either: in one interpretation, a camp_pitch is simply a place for
a single party to camp; in the other a camp_pitch is a single party's
site, always within a larger facility.

I'm asking because most of the camping places that I visit are either
backcountry campsites, where a site is luxurious if it has a thunder
box http://tinyurl.com/y3clyav3 and a fire pit, or else roadside
campsites that are little more than a place to park a small caravan or
pitch a tent, and may have a proper outhouse or even a well with a
pitcher pump. They aren't parts of a larger campground.

In the case of one long string of roadside sites (spaced perhaps 400 m
apart), the area near the road
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6370357 is legally a
'campground' and is tagged as such. The laws governing usage are
different from those that apply in the wilderness areas beyond. The
roadside spots continue to be maintained because of a long-standing
customary use by hunters, trappers and fishermen to access those
wilderness areas. (The other campgrounds that you see in the vicinity
are 'proper' camp_sites with communal flush toilets and showers,
offices, swimming beaches and so on. There are other strings of
roadside campsites that are not so grouped. For instance, there are a
dozen or so sites on Gould Road east of the end of the 'campground'
that are legally 'wild forest'.

Is there recommended tagging for sites without land access?  At some
point I may start placing individual sites to get the ref=* tagging,
and there are a whole lot of pitches in that part of the world that
may be numbered, reserved, paid-for sites, but that you need a canoe
to get to, either because they're on islands, or because they're on
trail-less lakeshore (and I at least don't want to push through the
mud and vegetation to get to them overland).

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 3:05 AM Joseph Eisenberg
<joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've restarted the proposal process for camp_site=camp_pitch
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
> This tag has already been used over 6800 times by over 380 mappers and is pretty well defined by the old proposal page from 2015 as an individual tent or caravan spot within a tourism=camp_site area.
> These features should be mapped as a node (or possibly an area, when this is verifiable) and "ref=*" can be used for the number of the camp pitch. This will be useful for routing and could be rendered like addr:unit (most campsites do not have official unit numbers).
> There is also a tag camp_site=pitch which is undocumented and seems to mean the same thing, but it is only used 1500 times by 34 mappers, and does not seem to be growing in usage. I'd recommend approving camp_site=camp_pitch instead
> Please comment here or on the proposal discussion page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

More information about the Tagging mailing list