[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I think “camp_site:part=camp_pitch” is too long.

Also,  remember that the existing tag is used for pitches within
campgrounds and caravan sites.

And, the British English term is “campsite”, without a space.

The shortest option with a new key would be “camp=pitch”.

But tourism=camp_pitch has the advantage of being in use, and it uses an
existing feature key.

I don’t feel enthusiastic about creating a 4th competing tagging standard
to go along with camp_site=pitch, camp_site=camp_pitch and
tourism=camp_pitch

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 2:05 AM marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Le 20.05.19 à 17:36, Jan S a écrit :
> > I find camp_site:part=* somewhat complicated, too. Also, it wouldn't be
> > consistent with the use of camp_site=* to describe the type of camping
> > site, either.
>
> tourism=camp_site + camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe
>
> and if you cut the site in several parts,
> camp_site:part=(camp_)pitch to describe each part
>
> > I'd prefer tourism=camp_pitch. This also has the advantage that this key
> > can be used for isolated camping pitches that are not part of a proper
> > camping ground.
>
> I find that it is precisely a defect. a camp_pitch does not define
> a basic camp_site limited to a single pitch (use tourism=camp_site +
> camp_site=basic for this, no need to add a part if the part=the whole
> camp_site).
>
> camp_pitch:part=* describes a part of a camp_site like building:part=*
> doesn't descript a building with one-part only.
> so a part always need to be in a camp_site like a building part
> need to be inside a building.
>
> but you can have a site with only one pitch and a deluxe service
> or have a site with a lot of pitch but basic service,
> there is no link between the number and quality
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190521/919cc916/attachment.html>