[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch
joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Fri Apr 12 13:37:30 UTC 2019
I agree that "camp_site=camp_pitch" isn't a perfect tag name, but it's
been used so often that I don't think it's worth changing. It's
already supported with a preset in ID as well.
As mentioned in the older version of the proposal, the value is
"camp_pitch" to avoid ambiguity with sporting pitches or fields.
The key "camp_site" was probably used to show that is needs to be a
feature of a tourism-camp_site (or caravan_site).
In this way it is similar to "allotments=plot", which is used to show
an individual garden plot for one family, within a larger area of
If "tourism=camp_pitch" or "amenity=camp_pitch" were used, it might be
confused with a stand-alone campsite.
On 4/12/19, Sven Geggus <lists at fuchsschwanzdomain.de> wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I’m fine with mapping individual pitches, but I don’t like the key.
>> “camp_site=*” sounds like a tag for the subtype of a camp site rather than
>> a different feature within such a site.
> Unfortunately its currently used for both.
> Not particular nice, but not that bad either. Changing this tag to something
> else would need automatic editing of 6941 objects.
> As I already said that I object the camp_pitch prefixing for subtags.
> Looking at them I also suggest to use the already established tags
> "power_supply" and "fireplace" instead of "camp_pitch:fire" and
> Um Kontrolle Ihres Kontos wiederzugewinnen, klicken Sie bitte auf das
> Verbindungsgebrüll. (aus einer Ebay fishing Mail)
> /me is giggls at ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging