[Tagging] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?

[Warin]

On 06/07/19 02:28, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:
> 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?

To me

bbq=yes means there is a physical bbq there and I can use it. To have a 
physical presence and not being able to use it is foolish.

bbq=no means I cannot bbq here, I don't think have never used it.

If there s a need to specify the bbq is permitted but you have to bring 
your own (BYO is a common abbreviation here) then a new value? 
bbq=bring_your_own???


>
> 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.

bbq:cooking_surface=grill/plate/* ??
where plate is a continuous surface for cooking on, like a fixed pan, 
these usually drain to some point for cleaning.