Proposed features/Tag:tourism=camp pitch

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The Feature Page for the approved proposal Tag:tourism=camp_pitch is located at Tag:tourism=camp_pitch.


Tag:tourism=camp_pitch
Status: Approved (active)
Proposed by: jeisenbe
Tagging: tourism=camp_pitch
Applies to: node, area
Definition: An tent or caravan pitch location within a campsite
Rendered as: reference number
Drafted on: 2015-05-27
RFC start: 2019-05-27
Vote start: 2019-06-14
Vote end: 2019-06-28

Proposal

This proposal provides a way to tag individual pitches within a campsite (a.k.a. "campground" in American English) or caravan site ("RV Park, American English).

A "camp pitch" in this context is the free space used to place a tent or or caravan within a tourism=camp_site or tourism=caravan_site area. Usually only one caravan is permitted on an individual pitch, but more than 1 tent may be allowed on a single pitch in some cases.

The pitch must be located within an area tagged tourism=camp_site or tourism=caravan_site

This proposal would deprecate the currently in-use tags camp_site=camp_pitch & camp_site=pitch.

Rationale

Large campgrounds may have hundreds of identified sites or pitches that are available for camping. Locating a specific pitch within a campground may be difficult especially if access is though a maze of one way service roads. So it is useful to be able to locate specific pitches within the campground both for display and for routing.

Further, amenities dedicated to individual pitches within a campground vary between campgrounds and sometimes within a single campground. It will be very difficult to come up with a single tag that clearly describes all of the facilities that are available to the camper at the pitch.

While camp_site=camp_pitch is currently in use, this tag was rejected because the key camp_site=* is already approved as a way to define the type of campsite, and many OSM users do not think that the same key should be used for camp pitches.

The key tourism=* is already in use for similar features. Tagging a camp pitch, which is an individually location within a tourism=camp_site as tourism=camp_pitch is similar to how some other small features are tagged, for example amenity=parking_space within amenity=parking

Therefore it is proposed to use the key "tourism". The wiki page will make it clear that this feature should be located within the area of a larger tourism=camp_site or tourism=caravan_site.

Alternatives

Currently tourism=camp_pitch has been used camp_site=camp_pitch is used 7375 times, mainly on nodes, but 1700 times as an area (closed way): Taginfo link. Using this tag was rejected recently, with 15 "yes" votes out of 30: Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch

There is also a similar tag, camp_site=pitch, used 1402 times, from an older proposal. This would also be deprecated by the new tag, tourism=camp_pitch

If this proposal is approved, it will be suggested to check if features marked camp_site=pitch or camp_site=camp_pitch can be edited, and the wiki page for camp_site=camp_pitch will show that tag as deprecated. However, as always, automated edits are not recommended.

Graph of usage of camp_site=pitch vs camp_site=camp_pitch from 2011 to mid 2018 from https://taghistory.raifer.tech

Tag Conventions

To avoid confusion between the sporting use of the word pitch (see leisure=pitch), a place for pitching a tent or parking a caravan is called a "camp pitch" (tourism=camp_pitch)

Tagging

A camp pitch is tagged either as a node located at the pitch identifying post or sign, or a way around the boundary of the pitch if this area is clearly verifiable (for example, if there is a fence or border around the individual pitch area).

The pitch must be located within an area tagged tourism=camp_site or tourism=caravan_site

The following tags should be placed on the point or way:

Tag Description
tourism=camp_pitch This is a pitch for a tent, caravan or motorhome.
ref=* If the pitch is identified with a reference, usually on a post or sign with a number, use the ref tag to record the identification.
addr:unit=* If the campground has a street address with official unit numbers for each camp pitch, then in addition to using ref=* a addr:unit=* may be used. This reflects the similarities between an individual camp pitch in a commercial campground with an apartment unit within an apartment building or complex. However, not all campgrounds have street addresses so using ref=* is the more generally relevant option.

Example

tourism=camp_pitch + ref=A12

tourism=camp_pitch + ref=230 + addr:unit=230

Applies to

  • Nodes
  • Areas

These nodes and areas must be located within an area tagged as tourism=camp_site or tourism=caravan_site

Rendering

The value of the ref=* tag could be rendered.

Can also be used by routing applications

Features/Pages affected

External discussions

See the Tagging mailing list discussion from April 2019 and May 2019

See also the related proposal: Proposed_features/Key:camp_pitch - the subkeys "camp_pitch:*" were originally developed in concert with the camp_site=camp_pitch proposal

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

Voting

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was approved with 24 votes for, 1 vote against and 0 abstentions.


  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. While I was also happy with the alternative tag camp_site=camp_pitch, which was rejected in the previous proposal, I believe the tourism key is preferred by most commenters and would be a good replacement --Jeisenbe (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I'm unhappy with nesting tourism=* features within a tourism=* feature. Come up with a different name for the key and I'd be perfectly happy with the rest of the proposal. For all their flaws, camp_site=pitch or camp_site=camp_pitch are better than nested tourism=*. How about camp_site:pitch=caravan|tent|caravan;tent|yes or something like that? --Brian de Ford (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
"how to tag that a pitch is for xyz" is not a part of the proposal, strange to talk about it Marc marc (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It is not uncommon to have the same key for nested features, e.g. amenity=atm within amenity=bank or leisure=pitch within leisure=sports_centre. You can even have the same key and value for nested features, e.g. historic=archaeological_site (maybe it is an exception). --Dieterdreist (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It sounds strange to me to reject a proposal because something is not mentioned where nothing prevents the standard use of tents=yes, caravans=yes, campers=yes later on tourism=camp_pitch as it's already in use with tourism=camp_site. And even maxtents=* for a camp_pitch for several tents. Happy to make this proposal after this one is accepted. KISS, do it step by step. BTW you should have mention this in the discussion page during the discussion phase --Nospam2005 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Marc marc (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Dieterdreist (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Nospam2005 (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Regarding Brian's objection above: I don't see the problem with nesting tourism features. (I nest leisure=playground inside leisure=park all the time!) I do feel, though, that t=camp_pitch should be able to stand on its own, not be limited to a t=camp_site container. I know that such places exist (offical spots for 1-2 tents that are not located within campgrounds.) If standalone t=camp_pitch is forbidden, camp_site=pitch and camp_site=camp_pitch may endure in these situations. --Jmapb (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The proposals for camp_site=camp_pitch and the previous proposal that included camp_site=pitch both recommended only using these tags for features within a campsite or caravan site. I believe that in British English usage, an individual location where one tent can be pitched is still known as a "campsite". --Jeisenbe (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Seems good for me. --Phiphou (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Garenkreiz (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Fizzie41 (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Dr Centerline (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Deuzeffe (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --R2d (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Adamfranco (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Mrey (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Phyks (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Bagage (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --AlaskaDave (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Grimpeur78 (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Alan01730 (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Discostu36 (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Adamant1 (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- DFyson (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --TOGA (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --JesseCrocker (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Did want to vote and forgot about it. This extra one to thank author to bring the proposal to successful end. Fanfouer (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)