Comments interspersed. . . > On Apr 29, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Bryce Nesbitt <bry...@obviously.com> wrote: > > Ok, lets see if we can land this. > Existing practice varies: > > tourism=camp_site + name=<pitch number> > tourism=camp_site + ref=<pitch number> > tourism=camp_site + addr:unit=<pitch number> > tourism=camp_site + addr:housenumber=<pitch number> > camp_site=pitch + name=<pitch number> > camp_site=pitch + ref=<pitch number> > camp_site=pitch + addr:unit=<pitch number> > camp_site=pitch+ addr:housenumber=<pitch number> > camp_site=<pitch number> > tourism=caravan_site + name=<pitch number> > building=cabin + ref=<number> > name=<pitch number> > ref=<pitch number>
You found more variations than I’ve noticed. It seems to be a good summary. > There's a lot of activity in the "camp_site" namespace: > > camp_site:water (412) > camp_site:parking (333) > camp_site:fire=ring > .... > I suspect that this is because of the suggested tagging at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches > > The least disruptive tagging seems to be; > > tourism=camp_site (for the site) or tourism=caravan_site > > camp_site=pitch > camp_site:<amenity>=yes/no > addr:unit=<pitch number> Which, other than addr:unit=<pitch number/name>, matches the tagging at the link above. > Tagging that avoids the namespace is: > tourism=camp_site (for the site) or tourism=caravan_site > > camp_site=pitch > <amenity>=yes/no (e.g. drinking_water=yes). > addr:unit=<pitch number> Any reason to avoid a namespace? Seems like tagging things like water availability as amenities would show a lot of amenities that are not really available to everyone. That is things like the picnic table, fire ring or fire place and possible water may be dedicated to the people who are occupying the unit/pitch/site. > If the community is willing to mechanically retag, it could be: > tourism=camp_site > <amenity>=yes/no > > camp_site:pitch=yes > <amenity>=yes/no > addr:housenumber=<pitch number> Looks like you are strongly in favor of not using a namespace. In the case of individual campsite pitches I think there is a strong case to be made for using a namespace. Maybe not camp_site:*=* as “camp_site” is, unfortunately, established for the overall campground. But there ought to be a way to show that a pitch as a number of amenities that are dedicated to that site and not to others which a namespace can easily do. > I chose addr:housenumber because that's perfectly set up for routers. If a > router can find a camp ground mapped as an area, > it should be able to find the number inside. It's also unrealistic at this > time to expect osm-carto to render ref addr:unit or other names. That sounds like “tagging for the renderer” to me. I find it distasteful to reuse part of the addr:* namespace for this but if it must be done then addr:unit is far more appropriate than addr:housenumber.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
