[talk-au] Tagging guidelines points - rest/parking/camping/hgv

[Warin]

On 16/4/22 14:35, Bob Cameron wrote:
> Sorry I cant see where to add these points to the wiki, nor see the 
> edit evolution. No doubt I'll see some disagreements, but anyway!
>
> - Regarding "No Camping" signs within the rest area category. 
> (Although it could apply to any location)
> It seems a bit long winded and not really useful for rendering 
> (boo-hiss-grin) that there is no direct correlation with camping keys. 
> The general "on the ground" camping  that happens seems to be a case 
> of "anywhere that isn't excluded", so it makes logical sense to "name" 
> a (non) camping site, who says so,  then mark it as access=no. 
> Rendering/reporting (boo/hiss) should exclude access=no from viable 
> sites.


OSM does not map 'no parking' areas ?  So why are people mapping 'No 
camping' with camping? These do render as a camping symbol in the 
standard map..

Note I am not against mapping 'no camping' but it has to be some 
recognized tagging to get the renders to show it correctly - or leave it 
out.

Some bushwalking areas have no camping either for cultural or ecological 
reasons.

>
> No doubt it contras the ROW wiki but things are not the same 
> everywhere. And realising that camping/staying is an incredibly 
> complex subject that will get even worse as more population elects to 
> stay mobile. People will need to know what public places they aren't 
> welcome in.
>
> Also in rest areas section
>
> - One of the dramas with local council (ie not highway) rest areas as 
> leisure=park is that the name is often the park name (only/already), 
> so the existence of the blue rest area "picnic table and tree" sign 
> doesn't really correlate. Naming a parking area works, but it isn't a 
> rest area. I don't have an answer for that one, although keep in mind 
> that one of the standard sub tags in "rest area" is operator.


Along with 'rest area' there is a desire to map toilets and bins.. and 
max stay to keep 'campers' aware.

>
> - Designated vs yes for hgv. I seem to remember that we don't input 
> legislation "stuff", but what is on the ground. I would prefer to 
> think "designated" (always) means there is a P+truck sign up, whereas 
> "yes" means it happens or is (judgement) possible. Informal 
> parking/rest areas would only ever have yes or no. This doesn't change 
> the tagging so much in the guidelines but the prewording to what the 
> tag and road signs actually equate to. I wonder if it is worth a few 
> graphics?
>
> - Vehicle parking sizes have worried me for a while. hgv's can double 
> in size. Perhaps it should be a based on B-Double sizes? I don't have 
> a viable answer for this as there will be data out there already. What 
> does NHVR do for its informal (green dot) rest areas? (To do with 
> capacity or size)


Road trains! Fortunately these know where they can/should park.


The problem with HGV parking is keeping others away. While a 
car/motorcycle even a car trailer can occupy a HGV space the same cannot 
be said for a HGV into a car space.