[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Thu Apr 11 09:45:08 UTC 2019


Hi Sven,

> Any reason for using a "camp_pitch:" prefix/namespace instead of generic
> tagging?

I believe you are commenting on the "Key:camp_pitch" proposal, which I
posted about one day after the Camp_site=camp_pitch proposal. It's
easy to get them mixed up. I did it just this morning myself!

> A surface is just a surface after all and the information, that it is the
> surface of a camp_pitch is already given by the camp_site=camp_pitch
> tagging. So prefixing is redundant at best.
>
> In practice this stuff will only lead to some kind of unificatiopn
> step when processing data. Frankly, I would prefer using generic tags.

I think that's a reasonable point. This namespaced tagging was not my
idea, I'm just reposting it as a new proposal. I agree that just using
keys like surface=* and drinking_water=* would be simpler.

> Looking at the additional tags I would also suggest to add the following for
> nodes:
> * width
> * length
> * direction
>
> Rationale for this is, that at least here in Germany there are wooden
> pitches in some backcountry campsites where this information might be very
> useful.

Sure, this could be suggested on the final wiki page. I can see length
being especially important for caravan and motorhome/RV pitches;
usually you need to check that the site is long enough for the
vehicle.

I'm not sure if direction is necessary. How would the direction tag be used?

If the pitch has a clear rectangular shape it could be mapped as an
area. But many tent pitches do not have clearly verifiable boundaries;
these should be mapped as nodes.

- Joseph



More information about the Tagging mailing list