> Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong with > that ?
I feel access=private deals with it effectively, but you guys have more experience in how data customers would deal with the data. A scout camp is a camp. It is visited by people who are not directly affiliated with those who run the camp. People visit the camp as a form of vacation activity. They have to be a member of the overall national body, but people who make reservations for their group are usually not part of the operating group, and travel hundreds of KM to visit it, usually by car, and is a camping landmark for thousands and thousands of campers. To almost all the people who visit it, it is a far-away tourist destination that they have never seen, and will visit only on vacations. There are also other private camps that are equally well known, such as school camps, and lesser known ones that are private (usually religious or corporate). it would be a failure of OSM not to map them, and a failure not to show they require membership (access=private) as _so many other buildings and religious buildings do already. We don’t have highway=service and highway=private_service because there already is a way to show that it is a road and has private access through the access=private tag. Alleys and driveways are differentiated through the service= tag. If it is decided it is a big problem, such as amenity=toilets automatically implies public access, then, yea, I guess another category of campsite needs to be created to reflect their private nature. I think it easier to put that in camp_site=private_camp rather than making a new amenity tag. There would be several other types of affiliation based camps (religious retreats, school camps, corporate retreat facilities), so a “scout camp” might be too narrow. Amenity=private_camp would be good as well if that is also deemed too connected to amenity=camp_site. But is it necessary to make another amenity tag? also - If there is an affiliation / brand / chain = tag, it might also be helpful, as boy scout camps are operated like franchises - like a privately owned McDonalds. for example, the Los Angeles council owns/leases the land and operates the camp, so operator= Los Angeles BSA; but the brand or chain = Boy Scouts of America (for American example). Most large national boy scout groups are a basically a franchising company - giving their approval to local chapters operated by civic groups. This would let someone pick out all the scout camps through that additional brand/franchise/chain/etc= tag, but the operator would correctly show who is actually running the camp. Javbw > On Apr 3, 2015, at 3:05 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt <bry...@obviously.com > <mailto:bry...@obviously.com>> wrote: > Scout camps ARE landmarks often, and valid destinations, even if they don't > offer services to the general public. > > This is not an argument to map it as tourism=camp_site, this is just a > argument to map it. While I agree with the latter (mapping it), I wonder > whether there are enough similarities with other camp sites to map them as > tourism=camp_site > Right now I have the impression that every new tag has to be super general > and that you need to add dozens of extra tags to understand what you are > actually talking about. ( a bit exaggerated, I know). > > When you make a map to show all camp sites, are you interested in showing the > scout camps ? I doubt so. > Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong with > that ? > > > regards > > m > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
