[Talk-us-nps] Best way to tag a campground/site?

[Charlotte Wolter]

Tom,

         Good question and one that often 
troubles me, because I map a lot of national parks.
         Many campgrounds in national parks 
accommodate everything from tent campers to big 
Winnebagos but don't have hook-ups. A few 
locations, such as the Grand Canyon, do have a 
subsection with hook-ups, but most do not. 
Because these locations allow even very large 
campers to park, even if they don't have 
hook-ups, I tag them "caravan sites." Maybe all 
we need is an option that adds "hook-ups" or "no hook-ups."
         Group sites are increasingly popular, 
and it would be good to have an option to tag them.
         I don't use tent camping much, mostly in 
campgrounds along hiking trails, where there 
would be no question of vehicles being present.
         I'm not particularly fond of "caravan," 
because that's a Briticism, used in the UK. How 
many Americans know what "caravan" means in this context?

Charlotte


At 04:56 PM 9/22/2013, you wrote:
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C9_01CEB7CD.D6E95E40"
>Content-Language: en-us
>
>It has been brought to my attention that our 
>method of tagging campgrounds runs afoul of OSM best practices:
>
><http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17949565>http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17949565
>
>Which begs the question: what is the best way to 
>tag a campground that serves multiple groups?
>
>Most NPS Front Country campgrounds, and Forest 
>Service as well, provide for “car-camping” as 
>well as RV Sites. Some also include group sites 
>(10 or more people not in an RV).
>
>We have been tagging them as such:
>
><http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourism?uselang=en>tourism 
>= camp_site;caravan_site
>
>Options include
>
><http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourism?uselang=en>tourism = camp_site
>comments = also_caravan_site
>
>but this will result in a very vocal and 
>vigorous response from the RV crowd as to why we’re not using:
>
><http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourism?uselang=en>tourism 
>= caravan_site
>comments = also_camp_site
>
>Another option is to use two nodes, very near 
>each other, one for each camping “activity”. 
>Most campgrounds are divided into tent sites and 
>RV sites, but in MHO this is not the best way to tag these
.?
>
>If the intended end result is for  consumers of 
>OSM data to be able to “locate” a campground 
>that best serves their needs (I’m sleeping in 
>the backseat of my car or a RV or in a horse 
>trailer), what is the best scenario here, when 
>applied to 350+ NPS parks  (We want a consistent tagging)?
>
>Just to complicate this, some Front Country 
>campgrounds can also accommodate horses, as well.
>
><http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semicolon#When_NOT_to_use_a_semi-colon_value_separator>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semicolon#When_NOT_to_use_a_semi-colon_value_separator 
>suggest that most consumers of OSM data can’t 
>parse the semi-colon, which I have a hard time 
>believing: any decent renderer using OSM data can use “like” statements.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Talk-us-nps mailing list
>Talk-us-nps at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-nps

Charlotte Wolter
927 18th Street Suite A
Santa Monica, California
90403
+1-310-597-4040
techlady at techlady.com
Skype: thetechlady

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-nps/attachments/20130923/b2857a32/attachment.html>