sent from a phone
> On 20. May 2019, at 18:19, Markus <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I prefer the camp_site:part=camp_pitch because the :part suffix is > already in use in building:part=* and could become a standard suffix > for parts of other objects, such as named parts of forests or lakes, > numbered grave fields of cemeteries or thematic parts of botanical > gardens or parks (e.g. medicinal herbs, asian plants, succulents). While it somehow works for buildings where the sum of all building:parts make up the whole building, and the parts may „exist“ in the real world as concept (have a name, be functionally defined), the same concept works less for camping sites, because you won’t generally be able to divide it into parts with the sum of them making the whole campsite (many components are already tagged differently, like leisure pitches, beaches, paths, shops, bathrooms, ...). And the pitch as part of a campsite is much less a common concept in the real world. There is already the spatial and semantic relation of the pitches inside the campsite so that it is not useful to restate this in the key. camp_site:part=yes would not make a lot of sense, would it? We also have examples where the parts are classified as their own class aside the “container”, e.g. place=city and suburb, quarter, neighborhood or amenity=bank, atm “Things inside things” is one of the core concepts which is inherent to OpenStreetMap and making a map in general, there are no tags needed for mapping it. Forest names (and geographic regions in general) are another issue that we have not solved thoroughly, because there are actually different types of “forests”: there are many small parts, often with names in densely populated places, which together form bigger areas with their own name (often/generally), which may form bigger parts again with a distinct name, and so on. Some names refer only to a patch of land with trees growing on them (and these can be represented well in osm), but the bigger they become, the more areas will be included where there aren’t actually trees growing. Those bigger entities aren’t “forests” in the osm sense, they are geographic regions with typically soft boundaries, for which we haven’t established any concept or convention yet. Adding a “:part” component does not solve these cases, it would again just be repeating with words what is already in the spatial structure. On top of these points, the key camp_site:part=camp_pitch is inconveniently long and ugly, featuring a colon and two underscores in the same tag ;-) If for some reason we don’t want to use the tourism key for these, the tag could still be much more simple, e.g. camping=pitch Cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
