> On Apr 29, 2015, at 4:15 PM, David Bannon <dban...@internode.on.net> wrote: > > Several months ago we were advised that a camp_site is the larger site > that contains one or (usually) more pitches. Therefore to say that a > particular instance of a camp_site is a pitch is just plain silly. > > Except, perhaps, for the rare case of a one pitch camp site ?
The key pitch=<value> is only used a few times and it appears that most or all of those should have been tagged with leisure=pitch, sport=<value>. So I guess that individual sites/pitches within a campground could use a namespace based on pitch. However I suspect that could become confusing to people more accustomed to the sport use of the word. Perhaps “camp_pitch” could be used to avoid confusion. The suggestions at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches could then be something like: camp_pitch:type=tent;caravan;motorhome — The things we can put on this pitch. camp_pitch:parking=yes/no - You can park next to your tent. camp_pitch:table=yes/no - There is a table for exclusive use of the pitch occupants. camp_pitch:fire=ring/stove - There is a fireplace or fire ring for exclusive use of pitch occupants. camp_pitch:electric=yes/no - There is an electrical hookup for this pitch. camp_pitch:water=yes/no - There is a water tap for this pitch. etc. camp_pitch=yes Seems a bit lame for identifying the pitch itself, so you could actually the pitch number or name under that key instead of using the addr:unit tag, so camp_pitch=<identifier> could be used instead of addr:unit=<identifier> or ref=<identifier>. If people are really worried about routing to a specific pitch in a campground and believe that addr:unit might be more acceptable to the people doing geocoding, then camp_pitch=yes, addr:unit=<identifier>.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
