[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Tue Apr 23 13:00:38 UTC 2019

I'm made some minor updates to the proposal page in response to
comments here and one on the talk page.

1) More than 1 tent allowed:
A camp pitch can sometimes allow more than one tent. Often a family
can have separate tents for parents and kids, and there are also
"group site" which are reserved for a single party and have a single
reference number, but can hold dozens of people

2) I added comments about the reasons for going with
camp-site=camp_pitch instead of tourism=*

a) - Using the tourism key would make it not possible to tag a
tourism=camp_site and camp_site=camp_pitch on a single node, in the
case of very small campsites that only have one pitch.
b) - More importantly, it is thought that using a standard key like
"tourism" might imply that this is a stand-alone feature; it might be
used instead of tourism=camp_site rather than inside of a
tourism=camp_site area.
c) Most importantly, camp_site=camp_pitch is currently in use and
extensive retagging would be required to change the tag or key.

Martin, I don't understand this comment:
On 4/18/19, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> And you may eventually be able to keep the exact same tagging but with
> different intended semantics (and basically the same meaning for the people
> who use the map): camp_pitch as subtype of camp site, not as a pitch object
> like tourism=camp_pitch

What do you mean by "camp_pitch as a subtype of camp site"? Are you
proposing something like this:


More information about the Tagging mailing list