> On May 1, 2015, at 10:17 PM, David Bannon <dban...@internode.on.net> wrote: > > Hmm, lets experiment ... > > Node > tourism = camp_site > camp_site = standard > name = Happy Jacks > > Node > tourism = camp_site > camp_pitch = yes > ref = 42 > addr:unit = 42 > camp_pitch:picnic_table=yes > > Node > .... > > What I don't see here is how to associate the pitches with "Happy > Jacks". I guess the easy solution is to say only map pitches where they > will fall into an (tourism=camp_site) area ? Hard solution is a > relation ? >
If you are doing detail mapping of a campground you should replace a tourism=camp_site node with a polygon. So you are mapping pitches within that campground polygon with either nodes or smaller polygons. So a node with both tourism=camp_site and camp_pitch=yes would only make sense if there were one and only one place to pitch a tent (park a caravan) in the campground. (I wish it was tourism=campground which would leave “site” or “camp_site” available for the individual pitches. To my American ears “pitch” is more likely a verb than a noun (“pitch a ball on a playing field” or “pitch a tent at a camp site” but that ship has sailed). > I think its sad we cannot put something more useful than "yes" after > camp_pitch= but I know someone saw a problem with my suggestion of > camp_pitch=42 ? That makes sense to me too and I may have suggested it at one time but it does get resistance. :) > > Starting to look like this is firming up anyway, good, we need these > solutions. I notice that user N76 says he did a good part of the > camp_site=pitch on record and is happy to rename them. We appreciate > such a helpful attitude ! (Voting on the camp_site= proposal page). > As you may have figured out by now, n76 is my OSM mapping ID. :) Cheers, Tod
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
