[talk-au] Camp_sites discussion

[Bob Cameron]

I wanted to ask for ideas and discussion related to tourism:camp_site.
Noting that there is also a wiki on this;

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site

Some general things. (Much from my own experience)

- Do we need to be extensive in our data detail given that there are a
plethora of other online databases available?

- Recent world changes and trends have seen employment and "just living"
whilst NFA far more common, so I think it is worth getting this working
well.

Detail

- In my experience there is now a large-ish proportion of population
that follows the rule, "stop/camp at any public place where it is not
expressly prohibited". The list of where it is not allowed is as
important as where it is. People quite literally stop anywhere. Many
towns are now entry signed something like "No camping within town
boundary except at authorised establishments".

- The previous implies that every camp sites will never be mapped. It
also means many wont have names.

- There is a confusion between "camping" and "overnight stays" when it
comes to signage. Since many now have both prohibited (eg remote Qld
highway truck parking areas) it is more or less (conveniently) assumed
that "no camping" (only) allows staying overnight in vehicles.

- Pretty well every camp site can have a maximum stay period defined.
Rest areas range between 8 and 48 hours. Most rest areas are 20 hours
and of course there are truck parking ONLY places.

- An aside... It isn't clear whether a car driver can use a toilet at a
truck rest area in Qld.
(https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/holiday-travel/stops/rest) That
would make toilets hgv:designated... (Insert laugh here)

My questions for starters

- How to define where camping is prohibited. Either by actual location
or (say) a larger area like a town/shire. I have been adding camp_site
names NO CAMPING and/or NO OVERNIGHT VEHICLES, the sign authority
(operator) and access=no , after we had a talk_au discussion on rest
areas some months ago. I don't like it, but I had to put the data
somewhere in the interim.

- Maximum length of stay would be a golden/useful key. That will cover
rest areas (hours) as well as those small community camps that only
allow 3 days or so. opening_hours doesn't cover it.

- Does capacity:tents=yes/no capacity:caravans=yes/no help the overnight
vs "camping" question. Keep in mind that people also travel around
sleeping in cars (capacity:motor_cars=yes/no), panel vans and grounded
sleeping bags beside motorbikes!

Tnx

[Warin]

What do you mean by 'camping'???

In Tasmania and New Zealand there are places where 'self contained
vehicles' (those with toileting facilities) can stay.

Most of the time I have tent 'camped' ... meaning I like dirt/grass/sand
to 'camp' on.
A surface of concrete or tar is not to my liking.  So the above 'self
contained vehicles' sites don't suit me.
But I have used soem 'unconventional 'camp sites' .. church yards,
cemeteries, parks, recreation grounds  (provided they don't have
automatic sprinkles that turn on at 2 am) are 'suitable' in some places
for me are 'camp grounds' ... but I would not like them mapped as such!


Also note the website
https://opencampingmap.org/#10/-41.9753/146.0797/0/0/bef
as an attempt to add information to camp sites in OSM.

Post by Bob Cameron
I wanted to ask for ideas and discussion related to tourism:camp_site.
Noting that there is also a wiki on this;
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site
Some general things. (Much from my own experience)
- Do we need to be extensive in our data detail given that there are a
plethora of other online databases available?
- Recent world changes and trends have seen employment and "just
living" whilst NFA far more common, so I think it is worth getting
this working well.
Detail
- In my experience there is now a large-ish proportion of population
that follows the rule, "stop/camp at any public place where it is not
expressly prohibited". The list of where it is not allowed is as
important as where it is. People quite literally stop anywhere. Many
towns are now entry signed something like "No camping within town
boundary except at authorised establishments".
- The previous implies that every camp sites will never be mapped. It
also means many wont have names.
- There is a confusion between "camping" and "overnight stays" when it
comes to signage. Since many now have both prohibited (eg remote Qld
highway truck parking areas) it is more or less (conveniently) assumed
that "no camping" (only) allows staying overnight in vehicles.
- Pretty well every camp site can have a maximum stay period defined.
Rest areas range between 8 and 48 hours. Most rest areas are 20 hours
and of course there are truck parking ONLY places.
- An aside... It isn't clear whether a car driver can use a toilet at
a truck rest area in Qld.
(https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/holiday-travel/stops/rest)
That would make toilets hgv:designated... (Insert laugh here)
My questions for starters
- How to define where camping is prohibited. Either by actual location
or (say) a larger area like a town/shire. I have been adding camp_site
names NO CAMPING and/or NO OVERNIGHT VEHICLES, the sign authority
(operator) and access=no , after we had a talk_au discussion on rest
areas some months ago. I don't like it, but I had to put the data
somewhere in the interim.
- Maximum length of stay would be a golden/useful key. That will cover
rest areas (hours) as well as those small community camps that only
allow 3 days or so. opening_hours doesn't cover it.
- Does capacity:tents=yes/no capacity:caravans=yes/no help the
overnight vs "camping" question. Keep in mind that people also travel
around sleeping in cars (capacity:motor_cars=yes/no), panel vans and
grounded sleeping bags beside motorbikes!
Tnx
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[Bob Cameron]

My thought is that OSM really only uses camp_site as a grouping
mechanism for anywhere someone may stay (at least overnight) that isn't
a fixed place of residence, but not a motel etc. Apart from caravan_site
I don't see any others. ie "camp" is not the grass/dirt/sand only thing.

I personally use the term quite loosely. I "camp" wherever I am.

Yes s/c is another case I forgot to mention. There are different
versions of that too. Some allow grey water/ground dispersal. Others
require a storage tank for all waste water.

I guess that in addition to caravan=yes/no, tent=yes/no and
motor_vehicle=yes/no there might be a need for self_contained_grey and
self_contained_black keys or that these be an option like;

caravan=yes/no/scb/scg and motor_vehicle=yes/no/scb/scg
(motor_vehicle covers motor-homes, vans and cars)
Is this method of adding unusual values valid?

The opencamping website is a display of OSM data or standalone?

Post by Warin
What do you mean by 'camping'???
In Tasmania and New Zealand there are places where 'self contained
vehicles' (those with toileting facilities) can stay.
Most of the time I have tent 'camped' ... meaning I like
dirt/grass/sand to 'camp' on.
A surface of concrete or tar is not to my liking.  So the above 'self
contained vehicles' sites don't suit me.
But I have used soem 'unconventional 'camp sites' .. church yards,
cemeteries, parks, recreation grounds  (provided they don't have
automatic sprinkles that turn on at 2 am) are 'suitable' in some
places for me are 'camp grounds' ... but I would not like them mapped
as such!
Also note the website
https://opencampingmap.org/#10/-41.9753/146.0797/0/0/bef
as an attempt to add information to camp sites in OSM.

[Warin]

Post by Bob Cameron
My thought is that OSM really only uses camp_site as a grouping
mechanism for anywhere someone may stay (at least overnight) that
isn't a fixed place of residence, but not a motel etc. Apart from
caravan_site I don't see any others. ie "camp" is not the
grass/dirt/sand only thing.

OSM maps 'official' sites.. where you can stay 'legally'. As far as I
know. At least those are the ones I add/detail.

Post by Bob Cameron
I personally use the term quite loosely. I "camp" wherever I am.
Yes s/c is another case I forgot to mention. There are different
versions of that too. Some allow grey water/ground dispersal. Others
require a storage tank for all waste water.
I guess that in addition to caravan=yes/no, tent=yes/no and
motor_vehicle=yes/no there might be a need for self_contained_grey and
self_contained_black keys or that these be an option like;
caravan=yes/no/scb/scg and motor_vehicle=yes/no/scb/scg

I would use another tag .. as it applies to all that stay there,
tent/car/caravan/trailer_tent etc

e.g.

self_contained=yes - where self contained is required but you don't have
any other details

self_contained=grey- where self contained is required and grey water
disposal is provided

self_contained=black - where self contained is required and black water
disposal is provided

self_contained=green - where self contained is required and no disposal
of waste water is provided

self_contained=no - default ... No self contained requirement.

????

Post by Bob Cameron
(motor_vehicle covers motor-homes, vans and cars)
Is this method of adding unusual values valid?

OSM "Any tag you like" ... but best to have an idea of how it fits with
other tags and how many places would use it. If it does not 'fit' and
'not numerous' someone could delete it.

Post by Bob Cameron
The opencamping website is a display of OSM data or standalone?

OSM data .. as an attempt to get people to improve campsite tagging.

Much like other quality assurance tools such as 'keep_right' etc.

Post by Bob Cameron

Post by Warin
What do you mean by 'camping'???
In Tasmania and New Zealand there are places where 'self contained
vehicles' (those with toileting facilities) can stay.
Most of the time I have tent 'camped' ... meaning I like
dirt/grass/sand to 'camp' on.
A surface of concrete or tar is not to my liking.  So the above 'self
contained vehicles' sites don't suit me.
But I have used soem 'unconventional 'camp sites' .. church yards,
cemeteries, parks, recreation grounds  (provided they don't have
automatic sprinkles that turn on at 2 am) are 'suitable' in some
places for me are 'camp grounds' ... but I would not like them mapped
as such!
Also note the website
https://opencampingmap.org/#10/-41.9753/146.0797/0/0/bef
as an attempt to add information to camp sites in OSM.

Graeme Note In previous wiki editions caravan sites excluded tents
altogether.

[Bob Cameron]

Post by Warin
OSM maps 'official' sites.. where you can stay 'legally'. As far as I
know. At least those are the ones I add/detail.

I remember a discussion (here) on the mapping of unofficial NP walking
tracks some time ago, that OSM data should be reflecting people reality.
Should overnight places work the same? I don't know about other
countries but there are already a lot of au databases that list quite
obscure places.

Post by Warin
I would use another tag .. as it applies to all that stay there,
tent/car/caravan/trailer_tent etc
e.g.
self_contained=yes - where self contained is required but you don't
have any other details
self_contained=grey- where self contained is required and grey water
disposal is provided
self_contained=black - where self contained is required and black
water disposal is provided
self_contained=green - where self contained is required and no
disposal of waste water is provided
self_contained=no - default ... No self contained requirement.

Looks good, Pardon my ignorance, but is this something that can be put
in place by common au assent and in tagging guidelines wiki? I don't
know how "proposals" work.

Post by Warin
OSM "Any tag you like" ... but best to have an idea of how it fits
with other tags and how many places would use it. If it does not 'fit'
and 'not numerous' someone could delete it.

Not to mention those that render/use the data not happy with it.

Post by Warin
OSM data .. as an attempt to get people to improve campsite tagging.
Much like other quality assurance tools such as 'keep_right' etc.

Also means one has to be careful to not change the current data layout.

So it uses the camp_site sub list tags. I presume it doesnt show
caravan_site objects?

I had a look at two of my camp_site entries (Florida Rest Areas - east
of Cobar and Meadow Glen Rest Area - west of Cobar) and note that
despite the same completed tags the Florida detail is blank. Wonder why?

Once the maxstay and self_contained questions can be resolved I can get
stuck into adding all the tags needed.. Looks really good! I assume I
can show non OSM mappers this?


Cheers

[Little Maps]

Bob, your first question was, “Do we need to be extensive in our data detail given that there are a plethora of other online databases available?” It might be more cogent to ask, “does the broader community want or need it” (probably no), “do we mappers want it” (sure, if *you* do it), or “can we mappers maintain and curate such a dataset” (probably no).

Most (not all) of the recent big advances in OSM in regional Australia have come from datasets that desk-based mappers can legally access, such as gov datasets and remote imagery (inc Mapillary). By contrast, point based data and detailed tags that have to be inspected on site stay on the map long past their due date in remote areas, simply because mappers can’t inspect them on the ground.

For example, over a decade ago someone imported a dataset called something like “300 free aussie campsites”. Every single one I’ve seen in southern NSW I’ve deleted (or added a no tag to) because they are so dodgy, illegal and inaccurate. There are heaps more on the map that are probably just as bad but they’re too remote to visit so they remain. For better or worse, any detailed tags you add that need to be inspected on the ground before they can be altered will probably persist unchanged over a decade from now.

That’s a downer but it’s a reality. The tech optimists among us will answer your questions by saying, yes you can make up any sensible tags you want, you can even try to convince the global (read European) OSM community to add new ones. But, equally, OSM is a social endeavour and if there isn’t the social capital to curate and maintain a dataset by local mappers then the tech potential can’t be reached.

Without corporate input from FB, M/soft, Apple etc (none of whom will be interest in campsites out in the sticks), there is no way that OSM can catch up to the extraordinarily detailed datasets on campsites that already exist on apps like WikiCamps etc. They are comprehensive, constantly updated, crowd sourced and increasingly curated to ensure accuracy and legality. Why would anyone choose to rely on a patchy, out of date OSM dataset when these exist?

Rather than re-invent them, it could be useful to ask, what role can OSM play that builds on its strengths and augments these existing campsite apps? One simple answer might be that, since OSM maps are used by lots of other apps (Strava, Komoot, MapsMe, Gaia, etc), then having a comprehensive set of data points for campsites would be really valuable, without adding heaps more tags. That way campsite and caravan park icons can be seen on every app that use OSM maps. These icons act as useful alerts and app users can then look up a separate campsite app to get all the latest details on them. Perhaps also, the OSM tag might include a web link to the campsite web page from one of these campsite apps. Every campsite in WikiCamps has a unique web page for example. Why not just link to those pages, where all the details will be updated and curated? Maybe ask their permission first. (We can’t take data from these apps but we can link to them).

The work that you (and hundreds of others) have done in remote areas is immensely valuable to OSM, and by extension, to every other user and organisation that draws on OSM. But I’m not convinced that we can add a lot of value to society at large by trying to create, add and maintain a long series of newly invented and informal tags on small remote campsites in highly remote areas. Especially when fantastic alternatives already exist.

But that’s just my call, of course. The beauty of OSM is that anyone can add anything they think is valuable. I’m just adding a broader view of how you could maximise the utility of the unique data you are creating. Perhaps it would be more useful if you added it to an established campsite app, and just added a simple tag for the site on OSM, perhaps with a link to a web page for the site from the app? Or whatever. It’s your call. But I think you’ll find OSM a very frustrating platform if you hope to see your new, informal tags displayed or rendered in useful ways.

Thanks again for all your great work and for continuing to ask challenging questions on the forum. Cheers Ian

[Bob Cameron]

A ramble...

The base problem with referring data elsewhere is that the inaccuracy
bubble gets larger and what is supposedly authoritative are always held
suspect. I am of the opinion that all data features should contain a
displayed age. That would also be generally handy with OSM data. Like if
I go to add a cattle grid and find it already there I should be able to
press a verified link that adds my name and touches the date counter.

There must be a hidden "last change" tag for every feature?

Wouldn't it be great if the imagery date were displayed on the ID editor?

.

Rendering Garnmin and rest. Are only amenity:toilets include and not
toilets-yes

Post by Little Maps
Bob, your first question was, “Do we need to be extensive in our data detail given that there are a plethora of other online databases available?” It might be more cogent to ask, “does the broader community want or need it” (probably no), “do we mappers want it” (sure, if *you* do it), or “can we mappers maintain and curate such a dataset” (probably no).
Most (not all) of the recent big advances in OSM in regional Australia have come from datasets that desk-based mappers can legally access, such as gov datasets and remote imagery (inc Mapillary). By contrast, point based data and detailed tags that have to be inspected on site stay on the map long past their due date in remote areas, simply because mappers can’t inspect them on the ground.
For example, over a decade ago someone imported a dataset called something like “300 free aussie campsites”. Every single one I’ve seen in southern NSW I’ve deleted (or added a no tag to) because they are so dodgy, illegal and inaccurate. There are heaps more on the map that are probably just as bad but they’re too remote to visit so they remain. For better or worse, any detailed tags you add that need to be inspected on the ground before they can be altered will probably persist unchanged over a decade from now.
That’s a downer but it’s a reality. The tech optimists among us will answer your questions by saying, yes you can make up any sensible tags you want, you can even try to convince the global (read European) OSM community to add new ones. But, equally, OSM is a social endeavour and if there isn’t the social capital to curate and maintain a dataset by local mappers then the tech potential can’t be reached.
Without corporate input from FB, M/soft, Apple etc (none of whom will be interest in campsites out in the sticks), there is no way that OSM can catch up to the extraordinarily detailed datasets on campsites that already exist on apps like WikiCamps etc. They are comprehensive, constantly updated, crowd sourced and increasingly curated to ensure accuracy and legality. Why would anyone choose to rely on a patchy, out of date OSM dataset when these exist?
Rather than re-invent them, it could be useful to ask, what role can OSM play that builds on its strengths and augments these existing campsite apps? One simple answer might be that, since OSM maps are used by lots of other apps (Strava, Komoot, MapsMe, Gaia, etc), then having a comprehensive set of data points for campsites would be really valuable, without adding heaps more tags. That way campsite and caravan park icons can be seen on every app that use OSM maps. These icons act as useful alerts and app users can then look up a separate campsite app to get all the latest details on them. Perhaps also, the OSM tag might include a web link to the campsite web page from one of these campsite apps. Every campsite in WikiCamps has a unique web page for example. Why not just link to those pages, where all the details will be updated and curated? Maybe ask their permission first. (We can’t take data from these apps but we can link to them).

The problem of course then is deciding what minimal data set is needed
for each camp_site object, in regard for those that single source the
OSM data.. I minimally include toilet yes/no and shower yes/no (if there
is a toilet). I am actually almost always duplicating that with separate
amenity objects. I wonder if it is a good practice to put such things as
time limits and self contained in the description rather than a key as
that seems to be something that is is displayed? That if course breaks
the opencampingmap functionality.

It's almost as if a vote is needed <grin>. I am quite happy to enter the
data for the 600 odd unique camp sites I have been at, but I would like
people to say "yes that would help me" or "what you are suggesting will
break this important xxx".

Post by Little Maps
The work that you (and hundreds of others) have done in remote areas is immensely valuable to OSM, and by extension, to every other user and organisation that draws on OSM. But I’m not convinced that we can add a lot of value to society at large by trying to create, add and maintain a long series of newly invented and informal tags on small remote campsites in highly remote areas. Especially when fantastic alternatives already exist.
But that’s just my call, of course. The beauty of OSM is that anyone can add anything they think is valuable. I’m just adding a broader view of how you could maximise the utility of the unique data you are creating. Perhaps it would be more useful if you added it to an established campsite app, and just added a simple tag for the site on OSM, perhaps with a link to a web page for the site from the app? Or whatever. It’s your call. But I think you’ll find OSM a very frustrating platform if you hope to see your new, informal tags displayed or rendered in useful ways.
Thanks again for all your great work and for continuing to ask challenging questions on the forum. Cheers Ian

[Bob Cameron]

Woops

Sent the last rather than just saving the draft.... Pls ignore

[Warin]

Post by Bob Cameron

Post by Warin
OSM maps 'official' sites.. where you can stay 'legally'. As far as I
know. At least those are the ones I add/detail.

I remember a discussion (here) on the mapping of unofficial NP walking
tracks some time ago, that OSM data should be reflecting people
reality. Should overnight places work the same? I don't know about
other countries but there are already a lot of au databases that list
quite obscure places.

:) Obscure  I like.

In NSW NP you can camp 'anywhere' (restrictions for 'wilderness' areas)
provided you are x km from a road. That said I would not map those
entire areas as a camp site.


The problem is that people will 'see' the 'camp site' on their cell
phone and use it thinking that it is fine to use.

If many people go camping where I camp there will be problems ..
particularly if they are not discrete about it.

Post by Bob Cameron

Post by Warin
I would use another tag .. as it applies to all that stay there,
tent/car/caravan/trailer_tent etc
e.g.
self_contained=yes - where self contained is required but you don't
have any other details
self_contained=grey- where self contained is required and grey water
disposal is provided
self_contained=black - where self contained is required and black
water disposal is provided
self_contained=green - where self contained is required and no
disposal of waste water is provided
self_contained=no - default ... No self contained requirement.

Looks good, Pardon my ignorance, but is this something that can be put
in place by common au assent and in tagging guidelines wiki? I don't
know how "proposals" work.

The 'proposal process' is supposed to get 'common assent'. However look
at it as getting more feedback on the idea and how to tag it.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process


Note: I should add the tagging of refrigerator=yes for those campsites
with a communal refrigerator.

Post by Bob Cameron

Post by Warin
OSM "Any tag you like" ... but best to have an idea of how it fits
with other tags and how many places would use it. If it does not
'fit' and 'not numerous' someone could delete it.

Not to mention those that render/use the data not happy with it.

I don't think they care -if they don't use it that can get thrown out in
the first stage of pre processing.

Post by Bob Cameron

Post by Warin
OSM data .. as an attempt to get people to improve campsite tagging.
Much like other quality assurance tools such as 'keep_right' etc.

Also means one has to be careful to not change the current data layout.
So it uses the camp_site sub list tags. I presume it doesnt show
caravan_site objects?

It shows caravan sites... at least it shows one of them I know of.

Post by Bob Cameron
I had a look at two of my camp_site entries (Florida Rest Areas - east
of Cobar and Meadow Glen Rest Area - west of Cobar) and note that
despite the same completed tags the Florida detail is blank. Wonder why?

If you click on the little 'bug' you get

* Site should be mapped as area instead of node.
* Tag *tents* is missing
(tag if tents are allowed/not allowed).
* tag *caravans* is missing
(tag if caravans are allowed/not allowed).
* No contact information (website, phone, email) given

Post by Bob Cameron
Once the maxstay and self_contained questions can be resolved I can
get stuck into adding all the tags needed.. Looks really good! I
assume I can show non OSM mappers this?

Certainly.

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Resend to include the list :-(

Thanks

Graeme


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Graeme Fitzpatrick <***@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 at 10:36
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Camp_sites discussion

Post by Bob Cameron
tourism:camp_site.

I was looking at this just a couple of days ago, so thanks for bringing it
up, Bob.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site "is used to map
a *campsite* (UK) or *campground* (North American): an area, usually
divided into a number of pitches
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_pitch>, where
people can camp overnight using tents, camper vans or caravans (aka RVs or
motorhomes)"

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site "is a place
where people with caravans / motorhomes / recreational vehicles can stay
overnight, or longer, in allotted spaces known as "pitches" or "sites" ...
They may also have some space for tents. If a site is primarily for tents,
it should be tagged as tourism
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourism>=camp_site
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site>."

To me, that suggests that camp-site should be taken to be tents only, & if
you've got wheels of any sort between you & the ground, so car / camper
trailer / caravan / motorhome etc, it should be a caravan-site?

Thanks
Graeme

[Bob Cameron]

Hi Graeme

Admitting ashamedly that I like nothing better than my OSM mkgmap Garmin
GPS device come up with any overnight viable stopping place nearby..
This of course makes me biased, so I apologise for that...

Post by Bob Cameron
tourism:camp_site.
I was looking at this just a couple of days ago, so thanks for
bringing it up, Bob.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site> "is used
to map a *campsite* (UK) or *campground* (North American): an area,
usually divided into a number of pitches
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_pitch>, where
people can camp overnight using tents, camper vans or caravans (aka
RVs or motorhomes)"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site> "is a
place where people with caravans / motorhomes / recreational vehicles
can stay overnight, or longer, in allotted spaces known as "pitches"
or "sites" ... They may also have some space for tents. If a site is
primarily for tents, it should be tagged as tourism
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourism>=camp_site
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site>."
To me, that suggests that camp-site should be taken to be tents only,
& if you've got wheels of any sort between you & the ground, so car /
camper trailer / caravan / motorhome etc, it should be a caravan-site?

I find it quite frustrating to see a caravan_site and camp_site come up
for the same entity. I get the impression that caravan_site is in fact a
subset of camp_site and that table list tags under it (camp_site) would
cover any caravan use. One major difference is that the wiki also lists
toilets/showers as keys rather than just relying in amenity, whereas
caravan_site doesn't. Perhaps it is inferred?

I tend to add individual amenity:toilet, amenity:shower etc as many
camping areas make these facilities available for non campers, sometimes
with a fee. It is not so common with more commercial caravan parks, some
even refuse to sell a (paid) shower from the insurance liability
standpoint. The same kind of variation happens with coin-op laundries at
caravan parks.

I'd actually like to see the use of caravan_site discouraged but that's
probably more my bias peeking through.. Would some fast query coder
please get me the number of au camp_site and caravan_site objects please.

Cheers

[Little Maps]

Hi Bob, here’s the stats on camp_site vs caravan_site you wanted to see. 6980 for camps vs 2019 for van sites.

https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/australia-oceania/australia/keys/tourism#values

From my experience, the two are often used for very different purposes, with caravan_site being used for caravan parks (not surprisingly) and camp_site being used for camping areas, regardless of whether vans are allowed, but I’m sure there’s a lot of overlap. Cheers Ian

[Warin]

Post by Bob Cameron
Hi Graeme
Admitting ashamedly that I like nothing better than my OSM mkgmap
Garmin GPS device come up with any overnight viable stopping place
nearby.. This of course makes me biased, so I apologise for that...

Post by Bob Cameron
tourism:camp_site.
I was looking at this just a couple of days ago, so thanks for
bringing it up, Bob.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site "is used
to map a *campsite* (UK) or *campground* (North American): an area,
usually divided into a number of pitches
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_pitch>, where
people can camp overnight using tents, camper vans or caravans (aka
RVs or motorhomes)"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site "is a
place where people with caravans / motorhomes / recreational vehicles
can stay overnight, or longer, in allotted spaces known as "pitches"
or "sites" ... They may also have some space for tents. If a site is
primarily for tents, it should be tagged as tourism
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tourism>=camp_site
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site>."
To me, that suggests that camp-site should be taken to be tents only,
& if you've got wheels of any sort between you & the ground, so car /
camper trailer / caravan / motorhome etc, it should be a caravan-site?

I find it quite frustrating to see a caravan_site and camp_site come
up for the same entity.

I delete one or the other .. depending on how I see tents there. If it
is mainly for caravans then it goes to caravans.

Post by Bob Cameron
I get the impression that caravan_site is in fact a subset of
camp_site and that table list tags under it (camp_site) would cover
any caravan use. One major difference is that the wiki also lists
toilets/showers as keys rather than just relying in amenity, whereas
caravan_site doesn't. Perhaps it is inferred?

I think the sub keys under camp/caravan site simply make later searches
for them easier to get the amenities rather than the program having to
search the area (enclosed .. or if it is a node then some area around
the node).

Post by Bob Cameron
I tend to add individual amenity:toilet, amenity:shower etc as many
camping areas make these facilities available for non campers,
sometimes with a fee. It is not so common with more commercial caravan
parks, some even refuse to sell a (paid) shower from the insurance
liability standpoint. The same kind of variation happens with coin-op
laundries at caravan parks.

Pubs also can offer showers ... depending on where you are (+how you
look and how they feel). Some roadhouses have showers too, mainly for
truckers.

Post by Bob Cameron
I'd actually like to see the use of caravan_site discouraged but
that's probably more my bias peeking through.. Would some fast query
coder please get me the number of au camp_site and caravan_site
objects please.