[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

[Joseph Eisenberg]

>  tourism=camp_pitch (not because I like this, but because fixing one issue (avoid conflit with tourism=camp_site + camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe) is better than fixing none of them.

Please do not retag features to an unapproved, undocumented tag.
Mechanical edits are discouraged, even if you are doing them by hand.

I'd be willing to make a proposal page for tourism=camp_pitch if there
is sufficient support for this tag, but it sounds like you don't
actually like this tag?

I'm not sure that there will be sufficient support for
tourism=camp_pitch to win approval. It's always hard to guess.

On 5/23/19, marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com> wrote:
> sumary :
> imho, this thread is trying to solve all issues in one shoot,
> and this nearly always fail.
> it seems better to cut this into several parts from the simplest to the
> most complicated (retag camp_site=* objects that have already a more
> suitable tags such as toilets, depreciated one by one the most
> problematic values of camp_site) in order to clarify the final solution.
> that's what I proposed on the french-speaking list, no one is against
> it, no public reaction, but taginfo shows that there are people
> working to improve the situation
>
> Le 22.05.19 à 03:26, Tod Fitch a écrit :
>  > If the tourism=camp_site has only one place to camp:
>  > tourism=camp_site
>  > camp_site=camp_pitch
>  > camp_pitch:type=tent
>  > camp_pitch:fire=ring
>
> that doesn't solve the double (hidjack) meaning of camp_site
> and to avoid unneeded namespace and use as often existing tags,
> I prefer somethink like :
> tourism=camp_site
> camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe
> camp_pitch:count=1 or camp_pitch=1
> tents=yes/only
> fireplace=yes/ring
>
>  > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:camp_pitch
>
> this propal over-use the namespace
> for ex drinking_water=yes/no is enought, no namespace needed
>
> Le 22.05.19 à 06:09, Tod Fitch a écrit :
>  > a site with only one place for tent/caravan
>  > list the detailed characteristics (table, fire ring, etc.).
>
> I don't understand the issue.
> just add the detailed characteristics to tourism=camp_site
> like it's already done for a lot of them.
> and add camp_pitch:count=1 or camp_pitch=1
>
> Le 22.05.19 à 06:09, Tod Fitch a écrit :
>  > What we’d call a “campground” is apparently called a “campsite” in
>  > British English and somehow turned into “camp site” in OSM. And what
>  > we’d call an individual place within a campground would be “camp site”
>  > but is apparently a “pitch” in BE.
>
> it's probably a good idea to inform about the risk of confusion
> on the wiki
>
>  > camp_site=pitch [5] was not well accepted by people on these mailing
> lists because “pitch” is more associated with fields for sports.
>
> I have review 100+ of them yesterday, I have found 2 usecases :
> - some are a camp_pitch in camp_site that have several camp_pitch".
> Those can be fixed with tourism=camp_pitch (not because I like this,
> but because fixing one issue (avoid conflit with tourism=camp_site +
> camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe) is better than fixing none
> of them. camp_pitch=yes is also a tmp fix due you dislike
> tourism=camp_pitch, or part=camp_pitch
> - some are a "part" of camp_site grouped because of a common caracts
> like a camp_site tents=yes caravans=yes with a part for tents=yes and a
> part for caravans=yes
> all tag/value currently in use are imho wrong. I have fixed those with
> tourism=camp_pitch the existing least bad solution we currently have in
> use. camp_pitch=many or part=yes may also be a tmp fix to find those later.
>
> that said, the problem of camp_pitch is general, values are drowned with
> item that have other more suitable tags. somes examples found :
> camp_site=entrance on a node of the outer -> entrance=yes
> camp_site=toilets -> amenity=toilets (sometime with access=customers)
> camp_site=shower -> amenity=shower (sometime with access=customers)
> camp_site=caravan -> caravans=yes/designated
>
>  > Proposed for a pitch within a campsite: camp_site:part=camp_pitch
>
> I agree with that, but some find it too long.
> so maybe it's better to cut issues in 3 :
> - fix camp_site= value when a better tag exist (toilets, shower,
> entrance, ...)
> - move camp_site=pitch camp_site=camp_pitch out of camp_site=* to solve
> the double meaning of this tag (a camp_site with one-only camp_pitch <>
> a camp_pitch in a camp_site with severals camp_pitch). we can tmp use
> tourism=camp_pitch or camp_pitch=yes or whatever to move out the
> approved tourism=camp_site camp_site=* tag linking.
> - find what the best schema could be for : a camp_pitch in a whole camp,
> a part of a whole camp used to add a subtag for this part
>
> Le 22.05.19 à 10:02, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>  > the sum of all building:parts make up the whole building
>
> you may add a part just to describe that a caract of a part
> that the usecase I have found by looking at the current usage
>
> Le 22.05.19 à 10:02, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>  > If for some reason we don’t want to use the tourism key for these,
>  > the tag could still be much more simple, e.g. camping=pitch
>
> so camping 'll become a main tag with only one value ? hum
> and that doesn't solve how to tag a part that isn't a camp_pitch
> or you also add camping=part ? that's not so far from part=yes
> inside a camping
> and imho it won't take long to see camping=site =toilets and so on
>
> Le 23.05.19 à 00:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit :
>  > then for each site
>
> so no main tag/value at all ? that avoid any bad tag/value :)
> but it is a radical change to have objects that only have subtags
> that exist elsewhere and no main tag describing what the object.
> practical problem: counting or render or finding those objects
> becomes very complicated since there is no longer any specific tag
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>