[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Tod Fitch tod at fitchdesign.com
Wed Apr 10 23:39:35 UTC 2019

> On Apr 10, 2019, at 12:02 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 <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 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch>

I am not sure that a “restart” of discussion of camp_site=pitch on this list is required: There are nearly 7000 usages [1] spread pretty much around the whole world [2]. This implies to me that what someone ought to do is move this old proposal into a description of how it is actually being used. Bike shedding it here among the dozen or so people that will argue this forever is just a waste of energy.

The edit of the proposal made in the last couple of days removed details on how to tag the amenities associated with each camp pitch (the suggested camp_pitch:*=* tagging). These have also gained some traction [3] and by this deletion there is no explanation of them anywhere in the wiki. Not good! I am of a mind to revert that part of your changes just so the many uses found around the world have some definition of what they mean and what values are documented.

Given the usage trends, I agree that we should deprecate the camp_site=pitch (and its associated sub-tagging) and suggest the camp_site=camp_pitch tagging instead.

> On Apr 10, 2019, at 6:51 AM, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> The current proposal suggests that this is useful to define individual sites for tents or caravans within a larger leisure=camp_site area. 
> I don’t see much use in double tagging a single backcountry tent site with leisure=camp_site and camp_site=camp_pitch on the same node.
> Usually an individual campsite has a name rather than a ref= tag. 
> For backcountry campsites, you can define the type of camp_site by using camp_site=basic (if there is no water or toilet) - see Key:camp_site
> Joseph

If the camp site has only a single pitch then I agree the tagging is over kill and maybe some simplifications are in order. But I my part of the world many (most?) backcountry camp sites actually have more than one area to pitch a tent and many of those actually are developed enough to have fire rings (fires outside of an official location is highly frowned upon). So I’d argue that a blanket “we don’t need this for backcountry camp sites” may be region specific.

I strongly suggest the way forward here is to simply move the old “proposed features” for camp_site=camp_pitch, with sub-tagging defined, into the regular pages of the wiki that describe tagging actually in use.

[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/camp_site=camp_pitch#overview
[2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/camp_site=camp_pitch#map
[3] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=camp_pitch


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190410/6741228d/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list