[Talk-GB] Caravan parks re-tagged tourism=chalet

[Mark Goodge]

On 05/01/2022 23:01, jc129 at mail.com wrote:
> I've noticed caravan parks are being re-tagged from
> tourism=caravan_site to tourism=chalet as a result of a MapRoulette
> challenge [1] I don't have any experience of caravan parks, but I'm
> guessing the idea behind the challenge is that tourism=caravan_site
> tag shouldn't be used if you can't pitch your own vehicle. On the
> wiki there is a separate tag to indicate if a site has static
> caravans, so wouldn't it be better to add a "static_caravans=only"
> tag instead of changing the sites to tourism=chalet as the chalet tag
> has multiple meanings already?

I'd agree that chalets and static caravans aren't the same thing, and 
should be tagged differently. The wiki for tourism=chalet has a 
description which doesn't match static caravans, and I think it's clear 
from that page that it isn't intended to include them.

However, there are already tags for what you want, without needing to 
add new ones.

The wiki for tourism=caravan_site has several attribute tags, including 
caravans=yes/no and static_caravans=yes/no as well as 
permanent_camping=yes/no/only.

If the assumption is that a caravan site always allows touring caravans, 
then both caravans=no and permanent_camping=only are redundant (and 
caravans=yes is a tautology). So, while it's not explicitly stated on 
the wiki, I think the intention is that a site consisting only of static 
caravans should be tagged as:

tourism=caravan_site
caravans=no
static_caravans=yes

and then other tags as appropriate.

It may seem a little counter-intuitive to tag something as a 
caravan_site and then also tag it as caravans=no, but it makes sense 
when you realise that caravans=* really means touring_caravans=*, as 
opposed to static_caravans=*. The wiki page for key:caravans indicates 
that it means touring caravans.

(Ideally, caravans=* really should have been created as 
touring_caravans=* in the first place, but that's a different can of 
worms that probably isn't worth opening right now.)

Mark