Am Mi., 22. Mai 2019 um 06:12 Uhr schrieb Tod Fitch <t...@fitchdesign.com>:
> 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 > > +1 > > > 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.). > this could be seen as an advantage: it would by default not show those places with just one pitch and likely no services, to people doing a simple query for camp sites on a generic service, while those people which are potential users of those basic backcountry pitches will likely use a specific map optimized for hiking. Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
