Proposal talk:Key:tourism=camp lodging
Feature neccessity vs Attribute
tourism=chalet and tourism=apartment are standalone. tourism=camp_pitch is needed to cover different areas. For this, why not use building=* + camp_lodging=yes / lodging=camp / lodging=yes? That's already its feature, and likely to be inside a tourism=camp_site . Unfortunately building:use=* is tied to building=* , without a corresponding structure possible.
—— Kovposch (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The primary reason for a feature rather than an attribute is twofold: 1) tourism=* comes with a whole set a context that is lacking from an attribute; namely, that the entity is of interest to tourists 2) it makes this an intuitive/natural analogue to tourism=camp_pitch. I'm not quite understanding the distinction you're making when you say "tourism=camp_pitch is needed to cover different areas". Would you mind expounding?
Also, the wiki pages for both tourism=* and amenity=* advocate their use in combination with building=* on the same entity, so this seems to be a common pattern. Joel Amos (talk)
- tourism=camp_pitch has no other feature tag, and can cover different surfaces or facilities (tables and fire or grill, as illustrated by cover photo). This already has building=* , and they are inside the tourism=camp_pitch . It would be akin to creating a tourism=hotel_building for building=hotel inside a tourism=hotel . There is no utility in adding more tourism=* features merely for showing the existence of multiple buildings inside a tourism=* feature. What's needed is an attribute to show what the building=cabin and building=static_caravan etc are used for.
tourism=* and amenity=* can be used on the entire site. They are more than the buildings. building=* + tourism=* is only 417k, not explaining the rest of the 628k tourism=*
and 
. For the use in tourism=hotel , single building and building-only hotels are common in cities. When it occupies more land, it's more convenient to add it to the building=* first, before drawing another area for the site perimeter in the next level of detail. This is not the case for tourism=camp_lodging .
—— Kovposch (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Per your feedback, I updated the definition defining the feature as a plot where the lodging exists. As such, I also provided multiple mapping options.
"...and they are inside the tourism=camp_pitch" As I mentioned in the Rationale section, "the camp_pitch proposal defined 'pitch' as 'a free space used to place a tent or or caravan,' and this matches common usage." As such, tourism=camp_lodging is not to be placed within a tourism_camp_pitch feature. They are separate but analogous features.
"building=* + tourism=* is only 417k" I think this well illustrates that it is conventional to add a tourism feature to an element that is marked as a building.
The main purpose for proposing this as a tourism feature rather than an attribute is twofold: 1) It signals to data consumers that this feature is of interest to tourists. 2) It matches what has already been established for tourism=camp_pitch. A rentable teepee is similar semantically to a camp pitch, and it makes for these to have a similar tagging scheme.
"you have to define clearly whether this is for a single or group of buildings" I struck that ambiguous language a day or so ago.
Joel Amos (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- tourism=camp_pitch obviously a typo as I repeat my opening on how they are inside a tourism=camp_site .
—— Kovposch (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Whoops, thanks for the clarification. Joel Amos (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
May be useful- rather than just single family unit, camp_lodging might also work well for summer youth camp cabins, multi-unit camp lodge that are not hotels or chalets. Skunkman56 (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I do not like his idea. I think, that this key would give us nothing which can not be already done using tourism=camp_site (+ additional tags e.g. backcountry=yes) or tourism=wilderness_hut. I am the author of https://opencampingmap.org and would not support this tag in my map as a new type of site. I would rather interpret this as some existing type (e.g. tourism=camp_site+backcountry=yes).(User giggls:giggls) 08:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, I am not proposing something analogous to tourism=camp_site. Rather, this feature is analogous to tourism=camp_pitch. As such, tourism=camp_lodging would most often appear within a camp_site, the same way camp_pitch usually appears within a camp_site. The difference is that camp_lodging is a plot with static lodging whereas camp_pitch is an empty plot where a person erects or parks their lodging. Joel Amos (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)