Before I update the proposal let me try to summarize where we stand: 1. There are three main categories of camp_sites: designated campsites, non-designated campsites and wild camps. Non-designated campsites are important for countries without a camping culture such as Ethiopia; 2. All designated campsites have in common that they have been set up to camp and that you are allowed to camp there. We have discussed a further subclassification of the designated campsites in (1) standard campsites with "more" facilities, (2) basic campsites with few facilities and (3) trekking campsites. Also a star system with even more levels came up. The perception what should go in which category depends on the place in the world as well as personal experience and interest. We came up with a draft list of minimal requirements for the standard campsite. That list could develop to the criterion to separate these subclasses; 3. The proposed definition of the basic campsite is very close to the existing tourism=caravan_site; 4. A more detailed description of a campsite requires many more attributes, some of which exist such as (internet access), some of which have been proposed a few years ago (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site) but never reached the voting stage and some of which are completely new. The current proposal does not address these attribute tags; 5. No clarity exists how we best can handle the potentially many amenities that came with a campsite: amenity=aaa;bbb;ccc under the tourism=camp_site tage or a site relation with a node for each amenity. The latter approach has been in the proposal from the beginning; 6. A new namespace tag should be defined for the wild camp. It depreciates impromptu=yes; 7. In some situations large areas have been identified where parking is allowed, but without specific provisions for camping (for example in a park where it is allowed to camp anywhere at least 200m from the lake). This situation should be removed from the proposal as it is not really a campsite
So the main questions to the group: 1. Do we want the subclassification of the designated campsites in the proposal? 2. Do we want to include ideas for new attributes in this proposal? Ad 1: I am still in favour of the subclassification. When you are travelling you will be aware of regional differences (I know how an Kenyan campsite typically differs from a German one) and if the classification is too difficult a high level of detailing is possible with attribute tags. Before I am off to Africa again I'll download all campsite related raw data. I would hope that the classes and subclasses would be rendered differently and that I get all additional details from the raw list. I would also hope that special interest sites like iOverlander would show all details I am looking for. Ad 2: I oppose the definition of new attributes in this proposal as each of them ears a separate discussion if needed. I do not want to mix the discussions. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl Before I update the proposal
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
