On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Tod Fitch <t...@fitchdesign.com> wrote:
> Most public campgrounds in US Forests, US Parks and, at least in > California, state parks don’t have a verifiable street address. And > backcountry (hike or walk-in) campsites sometimes have numbered pitches but > definitely don’t have a street address. For these I think ref=* would be > the best fit. > If osm-carto renders one, but not the other, that will skew the tagging. For USA park camgrounds often there IS a verifiable street address, but it's miles away from the actual campground. Even so: if you tell a router you want to go to "Foo Campground", and that's mapped as an area, the router really has all the information it needs to process addr:unit. I see pitch numbers as a good osm-carto feature, as they occur in areas of the map that are uncluttered or even blank. As such they don't have the downsides of rendering things like bicycle tool stands or dog waste bins, which receive objections based on clutter. Keep in mind that some piches are named, just as some apartment complexes or rooms are named. And a pitch could have both a name an a ref. add:unit=Willow Camp camp_site=Willow Camp name=Willow Camp pitch:name=Willow Camp ref=AZ2 add:unit=2 ref=2 camp_site=2 name=2 pitch:name=2 Or with a more proper namespace: > > * camp_site=pitch* > * pitch:drinking_water=no* > * pitch:picnic_table=yes* > > > The more I think about it, the more I like this example “with a more > proper namespace”. > > Procedurally, how to go forward? Should this be a new proposal page or an > edit of the old subsection of the old camp_site extended features proposal? > Or * camp_site=camp_pitch* * camp_pitch:drinking_water=no* * camp_pitch:picnic_table=yes* * name=2* * addr:unit=2*
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
