On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 15:16 +0900, johnw wrote: > That’s why I thought " informal yet legal spots" would be good wording > to cover this, and maybe link over to the camp_type proposal here - > because with the wording for basic, the first thing I thought about > was the legality or designation of the spot, thinking it would > influence the camp_site= level - when it fact it is all inside the > camp_type proposal. > You will have to help me here John, I don't quite see what you are trying to achieve. Here in AU it is, sort of, legal to camp anywhere that is not private property and not declared "no camping".
I see camp_site= used only where there is some substantial legal basis, (where that is unclear, its camp_type=). * In countries/places where the default is to allow camping, no sign or official endorsement is needed, just lack of a sign saying "no camping". * In other countries/places, where camping is not allowed unless its so stated, we'd need to see that statement. So, the term, 'legal' does have a slightly different meaning here depending on where you are. But if we try and define it too tightly, we may well end up excluding some local variation. Not sure thats a good idea. Would it work better if we added a small block that talks about just that, how 'legal' has that slightly different meaning ? That block would be a good place to say camp_type might be a better tag when the legal status is unclear or undefined ? David > I’m sure this will come up with other taggers as well. > > > I think camp_type=non_designated + camp_site=basic will be used > together quite frequently, so reminding people of that is pretty > important - it lets voters know why these two proposals go together > well. > > > Javbw > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
