[Tagging] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?
jmapb at gmx.com
Fri Jul 5 16:28:29 UTC 2019
On 7/5/2019 10:56 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I don't think it would be necessary to combine "bbq=no" and
> "bring_own_bbq=yes" - if a feature such as a leisure=picnic_site is
> tagged "bring_own_bbq=yes" that is sufficient. The tag "bbq=no", like
> most tags with value "no", can be omitted.
This is true. A better phrasing of the problem would be bbq=yes combined
with bring_own_bbq=yes. Does bbq=yes imply static bbq equipment, or just
permission to bbq that's further refined by the bring_own_bbq=yes tag?
In my mind, the *only* reason bbq=yes would mean the presence of a grill
is by echoing the amenity=atm/atm=yes pattern. But I don't think that
pattern works particularly well in this case. And as you pointed out in
your translation of the German wiki page, even amenity=bbq is already
used both ways, for equipment and permission: "One distinguishes between
free barbecue areas, where you have to take care of the grill yourself
and fixed barbecue areas with existing grill..." -- but there's no
indicating of *how* one distinguishes between the two. Obviously at one
point we didn't care to tag the difference, but now that we do, I don't
see any clear way of tagging all three possibilities
(grill/byo-grill/both) using the current tags.
More information about the Tagging