Talk:Tag:tourism=camp site

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Miscellaneous

In this page, the tag camp_site is applicable to nodes only. In the Key:tourism page, it is applicable to nodes and areas. Which page is right ? Osmarender doesn't seem to take into account the camp_site as an area.

of course: area and node! --Markus 07:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
To further this question it seems that some camp site tags only apply to nodes according to the wiki. For example, I want to add a scout camp which is fairly large in area and encompasses multiple buildings and other facilities. I was going to tag it the same way you tag schools but according to the wiki the scout=yes tag only applies to nodes, not areas. Is this an error, can you apply the scout=yes tag to an area? Exiton 22:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The best way would be to set it up as a site relation --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How can you add the contact telephone number of the campsite? Robneild 09:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

website=URL --Markus 07:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea to add information to the camp site node (or area) and differ between different kinds. Since there are 4 different icons proposed the tags should be equivalent to these icons. Why don't we put a scale scheme, perhaps like this: type=1/2/3/4? Alternative: Shouldn't there be a tag service=yes/no? And what does tents=yes mean? That there are only tents permitted? --Geogast 13:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some sort of logarithmic scale? scale=1 : up to 10 people scale=2 up to 100 people scale=3 up to 1000 people? In the Netherlands we have the so called Paalkampeerterreinen (pole-campsites) where only 3 tents at the same time are allowed (approx 10 people) and where one camps in a circle around a pole just somewhere in the wild... Tents=yes means that at least tents are allowed I guess.... GercoKees 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Why not "tents=100" if there is space for about 100 tents? Would be much easier than to invent a new system with scales -- Skunk 17:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, why not? tents=yes means tents are allowed. It says only that and implies nothing else. tents=100 means tents=yes and also that there is space for 100 of them. AlaskaDave (talk)
This was proposed in the past: see Tags for the whole campsite --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Scout camps (gender distinction)

I like the idea of noting scout camps with "scout=yes". But I think it could be slightly more specific. I propose "scout=boy" for camps which are used primarily by organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, and "scout=girl" for camps used primarily by organizations such as the Girl Scouts of the USA. (There is one of each variety in my area.) The existing "scout=yes" can still be used for camps which are used by scouts of both genders. Vid the Kid 02:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely scout camp sites (or those operated by other organisations) count as private areas, and therefore wouldn't normally be on a public map? But if it was necessary to note these, surely it would be better to use a standard operator name. Scout=yes is meaningless to those who don't know how your particular country's organisation works (indeed in writing this I'm jumping to assumptions about your boy scout organisation being one which operates private sites for scouts only). Rostranimin 19:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Further specifications

caravan=yes/no if the site allows or not caravans (untagged means no information), cabins=yes/no/number for cabins. Can probably add even more information, as the level of service on camp sites varies a lot. Some sites offer only cold shower while other have hot shower as well water and electrical power for caravans. --Skippern 03:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You also need the converse for Tag:tourism=caravan_site to indicate that a caravan site accepts tents. ChrisB 16:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It is more than that: see camping for overlanders --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Seasonal Opening

Is there a tag (except from note) to add information that a camping site is not open through the entire year ? --Creando 16:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at key:opening hours --!i! 08:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Further ideas

We have a cooperation here in Germany state Mecklenburg Vorpommern with a camping foundation. They have already a very poor internet map and allowed us to add camping sites out of there catalog. There they attribute every camp with a few icons: http://camping-caravan-mv.de/die-regionen/campingplatz-details.php?region=2&cp_id=100# that could give ideas for us:

A few that are very usefull for direct tagging:

Attribute Description possible Key
wash basin,shower
(Waschbecken/Dusche)
is there warm/cold washing place? washing=yes,warm,cold
babybath
(Babybad)
is there some place to take care of babys?
caravan disposal
(Caravanentsorung)
is there a place to disposal cemical toilets,... disposal=yes
power supply
(Stromanschluss)
which power_supply supported power_suppply=schuko,CEE
Part time power availability to be added (see [[#Attributes for overlander camping|Attributes for overlander camping) --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
clothes washing
(Textilreinigung)
can I clean my clothes? cleaning=washing_machine,dryer,...
leasing
(Miete)
can I lease a XYZ? leasing=caravan,bungalow,boats....
payment
(Kartenzahlung)
can I pay with XYZ? payment=Visa,EC,...
dogs
(Hunde)
can I take my animal? animals=dogs,horse,...
places
(Stellplätze)
how much caravan/tent places for tourists and for long time camper? Differ for places_tourism, places_period
lunch brake
(Mittagsruhe)
Is there a low silence mode at high noon?
awards
(Auszeichnungen)
Did the camp get awards? award=ADAC 2006
association
(Verbands-Mitlgied)
This camp is member of XYZ association association=VCWMV e.V., Tourismusverband,...

A few that are useful but can be tagged as separate nodes already:

Attribute Description possible Key
toilet
Shop
Restaurants,fast_food
Shop
beach (nudist)
Shop
piers
sailing, motorboat, water ski
table tennis, riding, golf, diving
pool

--!i! 13:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How to tag a non-dedicated campsite?

On hiking routes there are often non-dedicated campsites. These are good places for impromptu camping, but don't have any improvements and facilities. How can we tag the differentiation to a dedicted campsite? --Rudolf 09:10, 28 June 2012 (BST)

Solved. I have overseen backcountry=yes.
Can someone explain the difference between backcountry=yes and impromptu=yes? According to wikipedia, I think that's the same thing. --Rudolf 10:56, 28 June 2012 (BST)
Vote for backcountry=yes from my side! This tagging would be consistent with the one described at the hiking page. --Lpirl (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I oppose the proposal as it is too restrictive: overlanders also use parkings and police stations as unofficial campings. See camping for overlanders below. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
IMHO that tag mostly transform the original meaning of what a "camp_site" is (juste like impromptu=yes). I would find it much easier for data usage to split camp_site in "with facilities" (tourism=camp_site) and "without" (something like tourism=bivouac_site). sletuffe (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Set impromptu deprecated

IMHO the tag impromptu=yes/no is contradictorily. Impromptu means: "Prompted by the occasion rather than being planned in advance." If we map a campsite then it is not impromptu anymore. So this tag don't make much sense. What do you think? --Rudolf 08:40, 2 July 2012 (BST)

Right, one can never know if someone planned to go to a campsite or not (even if its not mapped) --Lpirl (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Tag backcountry=yes is mainy used by hikers and cyclists. It does not cover the needs of overlanders. Although impromptu=yes is not intuitive it therefore should not be depreciated. See section about overlanding below. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that impromptu=yes is a bit confusing, and too far from a camp_site definition, I'd favor moving those site to a more specific and independent key. (i.e. to not set tourism=camp_site) sletuffe (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC) tourism=bivouac_site and tourism=impromptu

entrance/reception marking

What ís the best way to map very big camp site? I see two options:

1. I put all tags to the area and then map separate building and mark is as entrance/reception. 2. I put all tags to the node where the entrance/reception is located and map the perimeter/fence/boundary separately.

In case 1 the entrance can be really unclear which makes good navigation impossible - tourist may end up at the fence from completely different direction. In case 2 the overall shape of the campsite can not be correctly rendered on map, because the connection with the campsite is lost/very loose. --Jakubt 14:21, 8 July 2012 (BST)
If you do know the area you can put an entrance node at the proper place and tag that separately. If you know building locations you could make a site relation. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

key: rating of campsite (1-5 stars)

In Europe at least any camp-site has a rating from 1 to 5 stars. Its an important criteria to select a camp site. Why not add it key for it?

Who rates the camp sites? Is this something that is done all over Europe or only in EU or any other part? Is this star system comparable to other quality system? Is it even comparable to itself? If there is a nice objective system for determining the quality of camp sites it is worth a tag. Most quality systems I have seen have been managed by catalogs and quite a lot of them are not reliable at all. Gnonthgol (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I think rating camp_sites is better left to end users. It's an opinion and highly subjective. That said, the "stars=*" rating system is already being used in OSM. AlaskaDave (talk)

Private camp sites with restricted access

Sometimes there are private camp sites belonging to an organisation, where only the organisation's members have access to the camp site. Often, the camp site would host more or less permanently installed caravans. Should these areas be tagged as camp_site at all, maybe with the attribute access:private? Or is it better not to use camp_site? What's the best way to tag these areas? Without further specification, camp_site will be misleading because you cannot just stay over for a night.

Dev of Other Features Table

As a follow up to discussion (Feb 2015) on the tagging list, starting to fill out this table.

What is the purpose of this table? The tags in the list are existing tags. If the intention is to add these tags as sub-tag under camping it will not work (duplicate keys). How does this section relate to Proposed features/Extend camp site? --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This was a draft to replace the second table on the main page. Intention just to document "best practice". And perhaps highlight those additional values that are needed. However, I stopped when the tagging list started discussing a (much better) proposal to define values for camp_site=*. Sadely, I think that proposal may be fatally bogged down, as so many good proposals are. Sigh ... --Davo (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Key Comment
amenity=toilets Toilets - does not work in this form, as any key can only be used once in a node, so amenity=... will not fly. If you use toilet=yes instead you can use all existing tags related to toilets. See camping for overlanders below for an elaboration. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
amenity=shower See comment toilets. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
amenity=bbq
leisure=firepit Firepit or Fire Place. Note that in this context, applies to whole camp site, not individual pitch
amenity=bench See comment toilets. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
leisure=picnic_table See comment toilets. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
leisure=swimming_pool See comment toilets. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
shop=laundry Not sure is this a good match for a camp site laundry, not really a shop IMHO. (If one must pay for using the laundry, it is still a shop, albeit with a limited customer base. AlaskaDave (talk))
power_supply=yes Power connection to at least some pitches. May be used by the campers. Specify 'no' if there is no power AND that would be unexpected, for example at a commercial camp ground.
man_made=water_tap could be connected to a caravan
amenity=water_point for large amounts of water eg to fill water tanks See comment toilets. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
amenity=drinking_water Drinking water eg to drink or fill a water bottle See comment toilets. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
amenity=watering_place Watering place for animals See comment toilets. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
amenity=waste_disposal Waste disposal. Bins and/or sewage, see below See comment toilets. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
waste=chemical_toilet For cassette type chemical toilets and holding tanks on RVs. Note restrictions on size may exist}}]]
lit=yes

I do not think we have a clear enough distinction between tags that apply to the overall camp site and ones for the pitch.

Agreed. To me, a camp_site is for one person, one caravan or one tent and a campground contains camp_sites. But, seeing as the former term is already being used for the latter and is well entrenched, how will we differentiate them? Please, let's not resort to relations to solve this. AlaskaDave (talk)

Camping for overlanders

--Jan van Bekkum (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This proposal has had two substantial updates taking the feedback of the previous proposals into account --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

Overlanders are people who travel for a longer period (at least a few months) usually with their own vehicles (mainly 4WD's, trucks and motorcycles) and cover a long distance, often in developing countries. Examples are Amsterdam to Capetown, Alaska to Tierra del Fuego and London to Delhi. Because many of the countries they pass have no or few official campings the requirements for tagging camping opportunities differ from those for "regular" campers. Overlanders today carefully maintain and exchange lists of suitable camping opportunities. It meets a clear overlander need if properly tagged camping opportunities were available in OSM. The overview below lists tags important to overlanders. It is a combination of existing tags, earlier proposed ones and some new proposals.

Tagging Method

The current tag tourism=camp_site does not enable to describe amenities that are present at the camping. In order to make as much use as possible of defined tags a camming needs to be described by multiple nodes or areas like tourism=camp_site, amenity=toilets, amenity=restaurant etc. within a site relation.

Limitations

Desirable information that is not fully provided in the OSM structure includes multiple camping images per camping and a rating system of environment (a bit comparable to the "Route touristique" on Michelin maps) and the camping facilities ("Is it functioning and clean?", comparable to a TripAdvisor rating). This could perhaps be solved by means of a Wikimedia Commons link for multimedia and a Wikidata link for the rating.

Top level tags and attributes for overlander camping

Top level values

Attributes Most important attributes:

  • camp_site=established (default), camp_site=unofficial, camp_site=wild_camp - Camping is done in three types of accommodation: (1) Established campsites - entities that have as main activity providing camping facilities for a fee, (2) informal campsites: - entities whose main activity is not camping, but that provide camping facilities for a fee. Usually these are hotels, hostels or motels. They may have separate facilities for campers (like a separate toilet section), allow campers to use shared facilities (typical in a hostel) or hand a room key out to the camper for use of toilet and shower, (3) wild camping - locations that do not provide facilities for campers and where campers stay for free. Such places are desirable because of nearby presence of public facilities (for example a kite club on the beach with free access to their toilets and beach showers or a guarded park with public toilets in the neighbourhood), their security (a police station or mission station) or their sheer beauty (an isolated palm beach)
  • name=*
  • description=*
  • opening_hours=*
  • payment=*
  • fee=*
  • tents=yes
  • campers=no - to be described in wiki similar to tents. It may be impossible for campers, trucks and busses to use a camping if the access road is not suitable, if it is in a protected environment or if individual places are too small
  • maxheight:physical=* and maxwidth=*. To be used to describe if trucks and busses can access and use the camping
  • cooking=* - in use for building=apartments; to be described in wiki
  • laundry_sink=* - to be defined: is a sink present for hand washing of laundry. Alternatively it could be an extra value for shop=laundry.

Tags to be used in combination

Relation
The logical grouping is by means of a site relation: Relation site (XML, Potlatch2, iD, JOSM, history, analyze, manage, gpx)

Comments

Below are the comments on the first version of the proposal.

Some comments, suggestions and/or questions are raised at other places. I copy (with link to the source) and comment them here in order to keep the discussion at one place. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(Martin McGowan)

Is it possible to add information on any height limitations for parking / entry to the proposals as well?
I suppose maxheight=* could be used for this --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Warin

Some of your suggested tags won't work. Some are manipulations of already existing tags ... just use the existing tags! The people who produce the end maps use the existing tags .. they won't adapt to your suggestions .. particularly when there are already existing ones in use.
What do you recommend? What I want to achieve is that all attributes of a campsite that belong together (the shower belongs to the camping) can be tagged to a single node. Trying to tag amenity=toilet and amenity=shower will not work as one overwrites the other. See my comment Tagging Method. So the options are to create multiple nodes, one for the camping itself, one for toilet, one for shower, etc. , but then you can't see they belong together.
Make the camp_site an area ... that is what it is after all, then a node for each feature? If you don't have the time for that .. well the resolution of OSM is about 50mm .. so a different node for each object 50mm apart would indicate to anyone that they are associated? Or make an artificial campsite area of say 100m square and put the nodes in that .. a representation of what is there.. if someone cares enough they can come along later and make a better representation Warin61 (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Why not a relation? I don't believe an area is the best approach. My main objection is that it still keeps objects unrelated that are related: if I use a search engine that finds a camping I still don't know it has a restaurant until I go to the map and see the symbols. Furthermore I want to create POI's while I am on the road with an app like OsmAnd. However, such apps create nodes only. I will often not be able to map the right area, because I don't know what the real camping area is and on the road because I don't have the tools. I strongly oppose the recommendation to create a 100 m square area that has no relation with reality. It is better to enter unapproved tags that are not rendered than knowingly wrong information that is rendered. Almost everything is an area, but nodes are for showing objects of which you cannot give area information. Creating a relation would be a much cleaner solution to address the issue --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The (probably best) alternative would be to create a site relation with separate nodes for camping, amenities etc. However, I don't like to create a site relation as long as no separate buildings (polygons at the correct location) have been defined. What I try to achieve in the proposal is to stick to existing tags in a structure that works in the OSM concept. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to get some of the tags (for example dryer=*) that were proposed already as proposed features in 2009, but rejected because of a lack of voters on the agenda again. It is one objective of this discussion document. It may be true that general renderers do not display all tags, but more dedicated ones may. For example the site iOverlander shows the kind of information being discussed, but uses a proprietary database now. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The existing tag laundry would be good enough for this? OK it does not say dryer specifically .. but a laundry will usually provide for the local conditions - if a dryer is required by the local climate they usually have one. Warin61 (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I am afraid it is not enough, that is why it is a suggested addition. All cases I am referring to are based on real life experience from overland traveling in Europe, Middle East and Africa for about 18 months since 2013. The dryer was really something we have been looking for and that played a role in selecting a camping. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Some of your suggested tags .. well 'hot shower' does not exist .. it is simply shower .. I'm presently trying to add the tag 'temperature' .. for use with showers, baths, water_taps etc. That is presently open for comments .. will move to voting and hopefully be voted 'in'. Then there have to be enough people using it and then enough features with that tag for the renderers (the end map makers) to think it is worth adding. Not easy to add new features .. harder still to change existing tags to some thing else.
Agree, you will have my vote. shower=hot was proposed earlier for campings. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
If you have an interest in adding things or changing things in OSM tags then join the tagging talk group .. I'm active there at the moment .. 'temperature', 'reception_desk' and a 'new' grouping of 'waste_collection' ... once those are finished .. well I might move on 'tents=yes/no/number'? But consider joining ... https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Will do --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
OSM campsite tags - The page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/...sm%3Dcamp_site shows the documented tags .. in blue! The tags in red are undocumented .. and may change.... I'm for changing 3 of them, removing one .. and adding another.. but it takes time. If you want to add data (tags) to OSM camp sites .. use the blue tags on that page and they may appear on the OSM maps.. use something else and that reduces any chance of the information appearing on an OSM map. The data is there .. but won't appear.
Agree, but there are so many unapproved tags in use (as you know there is serious opposition against the voting process) I try to use a rendered that has the option to show raw tags anyhow. Tags "develop" rather than being formally approved. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Tags in frequent use are usually documented in the wiki... if they lack documentation in the wiki people don't really know what they are for, if they are meant only for nodes or areas or relations. An example is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddog_bin ... a dog bin .. Is this for dead dogs? It is intended for dog excrement... yet there another tag for that .. again undocumented .. and yet another tag .. but that is documented .. which one would you use? The first one you came across or would you keep searching? There needs to be some method to coordinate and come to some consensus on the tags. While there is opposition to the tag talk group .. I don't see a better method.. any ideas.. I have started a thread on it ... time to stir that pot again Warin61 (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but it depends on the tag. I would say shower=hot is pretty trivial (although I have seen from the talk temperature in general is not). For other tags like washing_machine and dryer I would be happy to add a wiki page. --Jan van Bekkum (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Some of the resistance to introducing new tags come from rendering issues. But how will you render campsites with 20 possible tags and hundreds of possible combinations? Maybe wild camp and official campsite need a different icon, but it's no use trying to introduce 20 icons for campsites. To make full use of this kind of data, you need an interactive map with pop ups and or a decent search function. So the application built for this data can adapt to the data. --joost schouppe 9;30, 13 February 2015

More Amenities -- Bear Wire?

Sorry, but one more amenity(?) idea, though I'd be happy to hear of an alternative. At least in the US, national parks, forests, etc. where there is an active bear population will sometimes place a "bear cable" or "bear wire" at backpacking camp sites. This steel cable generally spans tree-to-tree for 15 feet or so and is about 15-20 feet off the ground. You use a rope to hang food, etc. from the wire to keep it away from bears. Importantly, it obviates the need to bring your own bear proof canister. Thus, it makes a significant difference to backpackers if there are bear wires at camp sites along their path. Amenity=bear_wire?? --MGH (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that that type of thing (along with bear resistant lockers which area often found at car camp areas) are camp ground specific so perhaps should not be a value for the amenity tag. I'd rather see something in a camp_site namespace for things likely to only be found in a camp ground. Maybe camp_site:food_storage=bear_locker/bear_cable? --N76 (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It may indeed be appropriate to use something other than "amenity", since you can only have one amenity per node, and many campsites are unlikely to have more than one node. However it appears that the trend (above and in the accepted official page) is to use unique keys (e.g., tents=, backcountry=, power=, awards=, etc.) rather than overloaded keys (e.g.: camp_site:food_storage). I'm not sure about this proliferation of keys, but it appears we're headed in that direction. --MGH (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)