Proposal talk:Camp type=*
Paalkamperen
There is another kind of camping site emerging in Belgium. A site where there is a pole. On the pole there is a pump. The water is not necessarily potable without cooking. On some there is a fireplace in a field and a 'field toilet'. There is no fee, but there are some restrictions. Maximum 10 persons, max. 3 tents, max. stay of 3 nights.
- The correct English term is boiling rather than cooking. trigpoint
Possibly keep wild camping separate
I think this categorisation looks useful, but suspect that wild camping places should be kept in a separate tag from the standard tourism=camp_site. Tentatively I'd just suggest tourism=wild_camp_site. Rationale, all other types represent places one might chose to camp during a journey: if a site with full facilities is not available then one has to make do with simpler places. Wild camping tends to be, well, 'wild', and is therefore more likely to represent something used in a planning phase of a long hike or expedition, rather than something one might search for on an ad hoc basis. Data consumers, particularly the Carto-CSS render are unlikely to make use of these adjectival tags which in mountainous areas may give a deceptive idea of available facilities for camping. See also my next point. SK53 (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- +1 : wild camps are imho too different to be a camp_site subkey. tourism=wild_camp_site is a good idea. sletuffe (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
..perhaps wilderness_camp_site or trekking_camp_site would work for those places where it's a good spot to camp in massive wilderness preserves or wilderness parks where overnight trekking/backpacking is allowed, but most good campsites are informal and unmapped. Certain spots offer access to water (stream), shade, and an area that is flat (and obviously used many times before by backpackers), mapping these informal, yet very remote locations with a specific tag for Trekkers (maybe a dome tent icon?) would be the lowest step on the camping rung. Javbw (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Other possible values
In the past tourism=camp_site has been widely used for Refugee (IDP, Internal Displaced Persons) Camps, and I've noticed use of tourism=caravan_site for both Mobile Home (en-gb)/Trailer (en-us) Parks on Wikipedia and Travellers' sites on Wikipedia. Whilst I tend to think both types of usage reflect tagging for the renderer, I think it would be useful to add used values on the proposal page along with suggested alternatives. SK53 (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Conflicting with current use
Appearantly there are already people using this tag following a different scheme, (looks as if they used it to tag parts of camping sites rather than using this to specify a detailed subtypology, have a look at taginfo here: [1]. There are roughly 1,8K uses as of now, which is neither very much nor so few that we can ignore it. IMHO from a semantic point of view the tags in use do not make much sense, for example a reception can occur everywhere and it seems like a bad idea to have different tags according to which feature it provides. --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Unclear which site goes into which category
As I think of many campsites I know of, it's unclear which of these categories they belong in. There's overlap between the level of amenity or luxury provided and the official permission to camp. I feel that OSM can and should map official permission (e.g. you are allowed to camp, or the permission to camp is unstated), but with separate tags from the style of camping. Brycenesbitt (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)