Proposal:Scout Camp
Scout camps are camp sites used by scouts. The public can usually hire the entire site, but unlike camp sites, single plots are not available.
Almost every Scout camp operates diferently, although some allow the public access, most will only allow members of youth organisations with similair child protection policies to that of the scout asssociation. (i.e. criminal record check on adults and code of conduct) so maybe tourism isn't an appropriate description of it.
Rendering
I'd suggest a green shaded area, with a scouting symbol, in a similar way to how schools, colleges, etc are rendered.
Tags
Revised:
| Type | Key | Value | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | amenity | camp | Used to indicate where the icon should be placed |
| area | amenity | camp | Shaded area |
| node | amenity | camp_site | Used to indicate where the icon should be placed |
| area | amenity | camp_site | Shaded area |
Note: This proposal also deprecates tourism=camp_site in favor of amenity=camp_site.
Original (for reference - the vote is on the tags shown above):
| Type | Key | Value | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | landuse | scout_camp | Used to indicate where the icon should be placed |
| area | landuse | scout_camp | Shaded area |
Open Issues
(Please use the Talk page if you want to discuss open issues.)
Vote here
- I approve this proposal -- Avantman42 12:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Need to map a few of these in my vicinity -- Welshie 13:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- Sadam 14:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- Robert Wyatt 14 November 2007
- I disapprove this proposal. It makes no sense to have all sorts of accomodation under tourism and now starting camp_site to be under amenity. Also the Description of the tags is not really helpful. What is the difference between camp and camp_site? Why is camp_site under amenity and scout_camp under landuse? This proposal really needs another round of cleanup! -- Ulfl 22:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I disapprove this proposal. It's not an amenity - it should be considered leisure/tourism. And we already have a way of identifying camp sites that can be qualified if necessary --Andrew T 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I disapprove this proposal. (comments on discussion page) MikeCollinson 12:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Voting closed 2007-12-13, proposal not approved -- Ulfl 03:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)