Talk:Propsed features/tourism=cabin

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cooking facilities and toilets

--Rjgambrel (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)The proposal contains the statement: "do not usually include cooking facilities or toilets and" I believe that should be struck from the proposal. Where I live they almost always contain cooking & toilet facilities.

The primary reason for including that clause was to differentiate from tourism=chalet. I'm not necessarily opposed to striking the clause or toning it down a bit. Would you mind linking to an example of what you're talking about and outlining the key reasons you think this is a cabin (or camping_pod; see below) instead of a chalet? Joel Amos


--dudone I think a tag to cover this would be useful. From a UK perspective this would be a "camping pod". I would therefore suggest "tourism=camping_pod" as alternative to "tourism=cabin". Whilst you do find them on camp/caravan sites you can also find sites that are just camping pods. The most basic form would be without cooking or toilet facilities so if you were wanting these you would ask before booking. A "pod" with a toilet and cooking facilities would more likely come under the term "glamping" (i.e. luxury camping) in the UK. This would make it a "glamping pod". I guess you could add toilet=yes/no and cooking_facilities=yes/no to identify these facilities.

I like camping_pod in that it genericizes the concept. It would more naturally allow for things like stationary caravans, glamping tepees, etc that are not strictly cabins. Mappers could use camping_pod=* to further distinguish the type, or more simply, we could imply it from the building tag. I'll leave this comment open for a bit to see if there are additional thoughts. Joel Amos

--dudone I don't think I would use camping_pod in a more generalised way. My suggestion was based on the description you originally provided. A static caravan, pod, shepherd's hut, cabin, luxury lodge can all come under the legal definition "caravan" in the UK. The main requirement is that they are for human habitation and can be moved by either towing or being put on a vehicle or trailer. There are more favourable rules with regard to planning/development if you have a "caravan" as opposed to built accommodation. In the context of the UK if you wanted a generic tag based on the legal requirements you would probably start with "tourism=caravan" and then use "caravan=pod/static/cabin etc."

While "caravan" may technically work, I think it would be a bit confusing given that it already has an established usage elsewhere in OSM and since we're looking for a term that connotes a static structure in order to contrast with camp_pitch. I also wouldn't want to exclude cabins that aren't technically caravans.
Some ideas:
  • tourism=camp(ing)_lodg(e)(ing)
    • Of all the variations here, I think I favor camp_lodging
  • tourism=camping_hut
    • A bit of a stretch for static RV

Joel Amos (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is going to be an ideal word for this. I would have suggested "camp_accommodation" but I suspect people wont like the use of accommodation at this level. The use of "camping_hut" would fit with "wilderness_hut" and "alpine_hut", however it seems the description for "wilderness_hut" (examples do include large stone buildings and small wooden cabins) suggests using "tourism_chalet" if you are able to rent one of these. Could people argue the case for using "tourism_chalet" in this context? See this for an example of a pod site using this: I must admit the current use of word "chalet" isn't a very good one. It defines a special type of building that in the UK we would associate with the Alps in Europe. However, we are stuck with it. I guess it goes back to your original description, where we are talking about accommodation without toilets and cooking facilities. If this is the case, then it would exclude static caravans in the UK as these all have such facilities.

It is a shame that more haven't looked at this as it would be useful to have a wider opinion. I'm not that knowledgable about tagging schemes but I do use caravan sites. Presumably you will have to go to a vote to get a wider opinion. --dudone

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Yeah, I'm aware of that suggestion to use tourism=chalet and address it in my "Rationale" section. The wiki advocates several different contradictory schemes in different places (tourism=camp_pitch + cabins=yes being another). Both common usage and the wiki definition suggest that a chalet is self-contained and has many amenities: a vacation home. The feature I'm proposing is distinct in that it is better thought of as simple lodging within a larger grounds or campsite. As with everything in OSM, there will always be some gray area in the middle. Per the commenter in the section above, I think I will tone down the language on cooking and toilets, as I don't want to explicitly exclude static caravans. In my view, they could still fit in the definition because they have relatively few amenities and retain the camping feel that a chalet lacks.

The reason I like camp_lodging that it differentiates it from other features like so:

  • Staying in a chalet is not camping.
  • A camp_pitch is not "lodging".
  • A wilderness_hut is backcountry and not at a camp
  • "lodging" doesn't imply amenities beyond sleeping facilities

"accommodation" can include services other than a place to stay (e.g. board), so I favor lodging. --Joel Amos (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about distinctions

Is the primary distinction between this and something like shelter_type=basic_hut or tourism=wilderness_hut the ability to be rented? If so, this feels like something that belongs to a subtag, perhaps rental=yes, rather than a distinct tag. Eiim (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

In my view, tourism=wilderness_hut is ill-conceived and should be merged into amenity=shelter, as the primary function of the former is to serve as a backcountry shelter rather than an explicit tourist destination.

So the question becomes: what is the primary distinction between amenity=shelter and tourism=cabin (or camping_pod; see above)? While rentability is a big distinction, I'd posit that the main distinction is what is implied by the tourism key: that the feature is best thought of as a tourist destination.

It's the same reason why building=cabin + rentable=yes is not a good solution; it lacks the signal to data consumers that this is a thing that tourists will want to know about. Joel Amos (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


I cannot see the use of this anywhere, where there are no toilets close by. So I think, it is primarily found on camping grounds? Around here, those dwellings on camping sites are called Bungalow. Of course, some sport running water, a toilet, a shower, a fridge and a cooking facility; But others don't, because, running water, toilet, shower, restaurant are site features, already there for those that mount their own tent. --Hungerburg (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Tiny House

In Germany, the "Tiny House", which is currently a big hit in the USA, is increasingly being offered and rented out at campsites. It corresponds roughly to "tourism=chalet" but is smaller and usually constructed on wheels, similar to a caravan. Perhaps this type can be considered here. Wetterauer (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)