> On May 20, 2019, at 4:28 PM, marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Le 21.05.19 à 00:58, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : >> I don’t feel enthusiastic about creating a 4th competing tagging >> standard to go along with camp_site=pitch, camp_site=camp_pitch >> and tourism=camp_pitch > > it's an argument that makes sense. > perhaps in this case, should we start by proposing to depreciate > camp_site=pitch and camp_site=camp_pitch since these are the 2 most > problematic in the logic of tag linking > > both depreciated tags would be temporarily converted into > tourism=camp_pitch but without voting on the choice of the final key, > dividing the problem in two would allow, i hope, to have almost > unanimity on the first step >
Please excuse possible Americanisms. What we’d call a “campground” is apparently called a “campsite” in British English and somehow turned into “camp site” in OSM. And what we’d call an individual place within a campground would be “camp site” but is apparently a “pitch” in BE. I keep mistyping these and then correcting myself. If I’ve missed some, I hope it is still readable. This is also a rather long post, so please bear with me. At present we seem to have at least three ways used to mark an individual tent/caravan site (pitch) within a campground (campsite or camp site). tourism=camp_pitch [1] camp_site=pitch [2] camp_site=camp_pitch [3][4][5] With respect to tourism=camp_pitch, it seems to have limited use (227 instances). I see no wiki on it at all, not even a proposal. So I don’t know if the taggers intended it to be for a place within a campsite or not. It has the unfortunate characteristic that it conflicts with tourism=camp_site so you can’t tag a site with only one place for tent/caravan with both camp_site (so it can be found at a top level by someone looking for camp sites) and camp_pitch (so you can potentially list the detailed characteristics (table, fire ring, etc.). For that reason I am very much against this. With respect to camp_site=pitch, the argument against that in these mailing lists a while back was that “pitch” is more associated with sports playing fields so “camp pitch” was suggested. I believe this can be fully deprecated and replaced with whatever new tagging gains a consensus. This leads us to camp_site=camp_pitch or some other not yet formally proposed tagging. Arguments against camp_site=camp_pitch include (with my commentary): “Problematic in the logic of tag linking” See [6]. We are dealing with a pitch within a campsite. So camp_site=camp_pitch, camp_pitch=* (or camp_pitch:*=value) fits in this scheme. On my query about what was meant by tag linking one of the responses was: > On May 21, 2019, at 6:20 PM, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > While "key=X" and "X=type_of_X" is a common way of tagging properties > of features, there is not a standard way of tagging features that are > located within a larger feature. > > There are at least 4 ways of doing this: > > 1) "key=X" -> "X=name_of_smaller_feature", where X is the term for the > larger feature. > Example: "allotments=plot" is used to define a specific plot within an > area of "landuse=allotments" > > 2) "key=X" -> "key=X_Y" > Example 1: "amenity=parking" is used for a parking lot, and > "amenity=parking_space" is used for the space to park one vehicle > within a parking lot > > 3) "key=yes" -> "key:namespace=yes" > Example: "building=yes" and "building:part=yes" is used to define > parts of buildings with different characteristics, eg a different > number of levels or different type of roof. > > 4) "key1=X" -> "key2=Y" > Two unrelated keys are used with two unrelated values. > Example: "man_made=works" should usually be within a "landuse=industrial” area The use of “tourism=camp_site” -> “camp_site=camp_pitch” matches example 1. So while I think that this tagging does not go against good tagging syntax, others disagree. Going down the list of negative votes on the proposal page. “The tag is in conflict with the tag chain, according to which camp_site=* describes the type of the tourism=camp_site. I think that camp_site:part <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:camp_site:part&action=edit&redlink=1>=camp_pitch <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:camp_site:part%3Dcamp_pitch&action=edit&redlink=1> would make most sense”. And “as already mentioned camp_site:part <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:camp_site:part&action=edit&redlink=1>=camp_pitch <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:camp_site:part%3Dcamp_pitch&action=edit&redlink=1> makes sense. camp_site <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:camp_site>=camp_pitch <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:camp_site%3Dcamp_pitch> does not”. I can understand this argument. I think meets the goal of the current preferred tagging syntax and should be further discussed. “I think too this is inconsistent. The key must be in tourism=*”. See my comment above: A camp pitch is within a campsite putting it at the same level in tourism would be a mistake. “Tag inconsistent with tag chain and general scheme”. Discussed above. It does meet the tag chain and general scheme but maybe camp_site:part=camp_pitch would fit better. “As mentioned upside, camp_site <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:camp_site>=* was previously reviewed as a level for tourism <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourism>=camp_site <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site> (among other). It shouldn't be used to described features inside the actual site. Piches, homes, toilets... and so on should have their own naming convention for sake of consistency”. That is what this proposal is attempting to do, provide a naming convention separate from camp_site to describe individual pitches within a campsite. So I don’t understand this criticism. “Camp_site key does not fit for this use”. Again, I don’t understand this criticism. We are attempting to come up with tagging for potentially multiple pitches within a campsite. “Camp_site is the total area, camp_pitch is a part of that, a plot/space, the plot is a single area for one tent/caravan and could have ref name/number. camp_site <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:camp_site>=camp_pitch <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:camp_site%3Dcamp_pitch> makes no sense. A good lined up hierarchy tree is important!” I think this is a restatement of “tag inconsistent with tag chain and general scheme”. “Tagging camp pitches is needed but I too would like to see more consistent tagging in OSM. I don't like using popularity as an argument for best practice not to mention there are only about 7.3k tags of this current proposal in use sofar. The tag amenity <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity>=parking_space <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space> from the parking proposal <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking> is an analogous example for which this proposal should be consistent with.” This promotes two associated items (parking area and specific parking space) at the same level of tagging (amenity). I am not sure I agree that this older style of tagging fits in the currently preferred name space tagging scheme. “camp_site key does not fit for this use”. “OSM needs a great logic on tagging. It appears that this proposal brokes that logic.” And “Ok for a proper tag. Not this one.” It would be nice if a these comments had a suggested way forward. “I do think, we need a tag for individual camp pitches, but it should more adhere to the common tagging scheme, i.e. some kind of sub-tag of tourism=camp_site”. That is the attempt. Looking at all the responses, what is your opinion of the following tagging scheme: Existing: tourism=camp_site Proposed for a pitch within a campsite: camp_site:part=camp_pitch It seems that camp_site:part=* is totally unused at present. This might be an advantage as we can clearly define what it means rather than guessing at some undocumented use. Is this satisfactory for those nay voters? If not, what would be a better tag that satisfies the objections stated in the voting? Thanks! [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tourism=camp_pitch [2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/camp_site=pitch [3] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/camp_site=camp_pitch [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:camp_site%3Dcamp_pitch [5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch [6] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like#Syntactic_conventions_for_new_tags
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
