[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Fri Apr 26 02:08:19 UTC 2019

I'm afraid that using camp_site=camp_pitch as a subtag on
tourism=camp_site features, and using "tourism=pitch" for separate
tagging would combine the same disadvantages as using
camp_site=camp_pitch as an independent feature, plus the disadvantages
of adopting a new tag under the tourism key.

Your suggestion would require redefining "camp_site=camp_pitch" to be
a subkey of "tourism=camp_site" even though it is mainly used by
itself to map individual pitches.

Then we would need to retag all of the other "camp_site=camp_pitch"
objects - but not necessarily the ones that are also tagged with
tourism=camp_site. This would be confusing and still would require a
large amount of retagging of features that were used by dozens of
mappers over the past few years.

And if "tourism=camp_pitch" were the new approved tag, it could still
be accidentally used instead of "tourism=camp_site" for individual
features (I almost mixed that up just while typing this).

I still think it's easiest for us to approve the fairly popular tag
"camp_site=camp_pitch", which is already supported by some editors,
since the alternatives also have some disadvantages.


On 4/24/19, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23. Apr 2019, at 15:00, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
>> What do you mean by "camp_pitch as a subtype of camp site"? Are you
>> proposing something like this: Proposed_features/Key:camp_pitch
> no, I was referring to key camp_site=* as key for subtypes of camp sites.
> “camp_pitch” could be seen as one of the subtypes of camp sites (a site
> consisting of one pitch)

More information about the Tagging mailing list