Talk:Proposed features/Camp Site
Things that still need to be agreed on -
Is this the right model ?
By model, I mean the idea we can divide up all camp sites into between four and six categories, separated by a small set of facilities.
- I am afraid it will be hard to create definitions that satisfy everybody: for one category of users a children's playground may be condition for a luxury campground, for another category a restaurant. A typical camping guides may have 10 categories of parameters with 5 parameters per category, including more subjective ones like environment and maintenance level which are all rated and weighed leading to an overall rating. We cannot copy this in OSM, so how far do we go. It may be better to focus on definition of the available facilities first, reviving parts of the abandoned Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site first. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, agree its not possible to make a perfect scale. However, I do think we can held the vast majority of mappers and end users. There will most certainly be some anomalies, but that is how like is. Having been away, camping, for some three weeks, and running a critical eye over places we visited, its potentially very useful.
Assuming its the right model, how many steps and what value for each ?
Too few and too many steps would be a problem. I think =basic is ok at that end but how far do we go and how fine an increment is appropriate ? Do people think that by time a camp site has a swimming pool and a restaurant that is about it ? Beyond that and it becomes a resort ? The test IMHO might be do they still accept overnight visits ?
And are the distinguishing features about right ? There will always be anomalies but we hope to be right much of the time and correct the anomalies with additional tags.
How to tag the other, additional information ?
Its not really part of this proposal but while people's minds are on the topic, maybe a good time to recommend a tagging model ?
A list -
Possibly does not work with the category model being proposed here ?
Before long we'll have geoprocessing tools that can add most of these tags. For any campground marked as an area, it can find any toilets/drinkingwater/dump stations, and annotate the area (with toilets=yes, drinking_water=yes). That will eliminate much of the benefit of this proposal. Data consumers can decide what categories of amenity make sense for their viewers. Brycenesbitt (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)