[talk-au] Camp_sites discussion

[Bob Cameron]

A ramble...

The base problem with referring data elsewhere is that the inaccuracy 
bubble gets larger and what is supposedly authoritative are always held 
suspect. I am of the opinion that all data features should contain a 
displayed age. That would also be generally handy with OSM data. Like if 
I go to add a cattle grid and find it already there I should be able to 
press a verified link that adds my name and touches the date counter.

There must be a hidden "last change" tag for every feature?

Wouldn't it be great if the imagery date were displayed on the ID editor?

.

Rendering Garnmin and rest. Are only amenity:toilets include and not 
toilets-yes

On 23/4/21 9:18 am, Little Maps wrote:
> Bob, your first question was, “Do we need to be extensive in our data detail given that there are a plethora of other online databases available?” It might be more cogent to ask, “does the broader community want or need it” (probably no), “do we mappers want it” (sure, if *you* do it), or “can we mappers maintain and curate such a dataset” (probably no).
>
> Most (not all) of the recent big advances in OSM in regional Australia have come from datasets that desk-based mappers can legally access, such as gov datasets and remote imagery (inc Mapillary). By contrast, point based data and detailed tags that have to be inspected on site stay on the map long past their due date in remote areas, simply because mappers can’t inspect them on the ground.
>
> For example, over a decade ago someone imported a dataset called something like “300 free aussie campsites”. Every single one I’ve seen in southern NSW I’ve deleted (or added a no tag to) because they are so dodgy, illegal and inaccurate. There are heaps more on the map that are probably just as bad but they’re too remote to visit so they remain. For better or worse, any detailed tags you add that need to be inspected on the ground before they can be altered will probably persist unchanged over a decade from now.
>
> That’s a downer but it’s a reality. The tech optimists among us will answer your questions by saying, yes you can make up any sensible tags you want, you can even try to convince the global (read European) OSM community to add new ones. But, equally, OSM is a social endeavour and if there isn’t the social capital to curate and maintain a dataset by local mappers then the tech potential can’t be reached.
>
> Without corporate input from FB, M/soft, Apple etc (none of whom will be interest in campsites out in the sticks), there is no way that OSM can catch up to the extraordinarily detailed datasets on campsites that already exist on apps like WikiCamps etc. They are comprehensive, constantly updated, crowd sourced and increasingly curated to ensure accuracy and legality. Why would anyone choose to rely on a patchy, out of date OSM dataset when these exist?
>
> Rather than re-invent them, it could be useful to ask, what role can OSM play that builds on its strengths and augments these existing campsite apps? One simple answer might be that, since OSM maps are used by lots of other apps (Strava, Komoot, MapsMe, Gaia, etc), then having a comprehensive set of data points for campsites would be really valuable, without adding heaps more tags. That way campsite and caravan park icons can be seen on every app that use OSM maps. These icons act as useful alerts and app users can then look up a separate campsite app to get all the latest details on them. Perhaps also, the OSM tag might include a web link to the campsite web page from one of these campsite apps. Every campsite in WikiCamps has a unique web page for example. Why not just link to those pages, where all the details will be updated and curated? Maybe ask their permission first. (We can’t take data from these apps but we can link to them).

The problem of course then is deciding what minimal data set is needed 
for each camp_site object, in regard for those that single source the 
OSM data.. I minimally include toilet yes/no and shower yes/no (if there 
is a toilet). I am actually almost always duplicating that with separate 
amenity objects. I wonder if it is a good practice to put such things as 
time limits and self contained in the description rather than a key as 
that seems to be something that is is displayed? That if course breaks 
the opencampingmap functionality.

It's almost as if a vote is needed <grin>. I am quite happy to enter the 
data for the 600 odd unique camp sites I have been at, but I would like 
people to say "yes that would help me" or "what you are suggesting will 
break this important xxx".

>
> The work that you (and hundreds of others) have done in remote areas is immensely valuable to OSM, and by extension, to every other user and organisation that draws on OSM. But I’m not convinced that we can add a lot of value to society at large by trying to create, add and maintain a long series of newly invented and informal tags on small remote campsites in highly remote areas. Especially when fantastic alternatives already exist.
>
> But that’s just my call, of course. The beauty of OSM is that anyone can add anything they think is valuable. I’m just adding a broader view of how you could maximise the utility of the unique data you are creating. Perhaps it would be more useful if you added it to an established campsite app, and just added a simple tag for the site on OSM, perhaps with a link to a web page for the site from the app? Or whatever. It’s your call. But I think you’ll find OSM a very frustrating platform if you hope to see your new, informal tags displayed or rendered in useful ways.
>
> Thanks again for all your great work and for continuing to ask challenging questions on the forum. Cheers Ian