Proposal:Camp site pitch

Tagging of individual pitches within a campground
Proposal status:	Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by:	n76
Tagging:	camp_site=camp_pitch Data item
Applies to:	node, area
Definition:	An tent or caravan pitch location within a camp site
Statistics:
Rendered as:	reference number
Draft started:	2015-05-01
RFC start:	2019-04-10
Vote start:	2019-05-01
Vote end:	2019-05-22

Proposal

Approve the currently in-use tag camp_site=camp_pitch.

This proposal provides a way to tag individual pitches within a campground or caravan site. A "camp pitch" in this context is the free space used to place a tent or or caravan within a tourism=camp_site or tourism=caravan_site area. Usually only one caravan is permitted on an individual pitch, but more than 1 tent may be allowed on a single pitch in some cases.

Rationale

Large campgrounds may have hundreds of identified sites or pitches that are available for camping. Locating a specific pitch within a campground may be difficult especially if access is though a maze of one way service roads. So it is useful to be able to locate specific pitches within the campground both for display and for routing.

Further, amenities dedicated to individual pitches within a campground vary between campgrounds and sometimes within a single campground. It will be very difficult to come up with a single tag that clearly describes all of the facilities that are available to the camper at the pitch.

Currently camp_site=camp_pitch is used 6934 times, mainly on nodes, but 400 times as an area (closed way): Taginfo link.

There is also a similar tag, camp_site=pitch, used 1 530 times, from an older proposal. But camp_site=camp_pitch is growing in popularity, while camp_site=pitch has stagnated. Also, camp_site=pitch has been used by only 35 mappers, compared to over 380 users of camp_site=camp_pitch.

If this proposal is approved, it will be suggested to check if features marked camp_site=pitch can be edited. However, automated edits are not recommended.

Graph of usage of camp_site=pitch vs camp_site=camp_pitch from 2011 to mid 2018 from https://taghistory.raifer.tech

Tag Conventions

To avoid confusion between the sporting use of the word pitch (see leisure=pitch), a place for pitching a tent or parking a caravan is called a "camp pitch" (camp_site=camp_pitch)

There is also a tag tourism=camp_pitch but this is used only 226 times. Using the tourism key would make it not possible to tag a tourism=camp_site and camp_site=camp_pitch on a single node, in the case of very small campsites that only have one pitch. More importantly, it is thought that using a standard key like "tourism" might imply that this is a stand-alone feature; it might be used instead of tourism=camp_site rather than inside of a tourism=camp_site area. Most importantly, camp_site=camp_pitch is currently in use and extensive retagging would be required to change the tag or key.

Tagging

A camp pitch is tagged either as a node located at the pitch identifying post or sign, or a way around the boundary of the pitch if this area is clearly verifiable (for example, if there is a fence or border around the individual pitch area). The following tags should be placed on the point or way:

Tag	Description
camp_site=camp_pitch	This is a pitch for a tent or caravan or motorhome.
ref=*	If the pitch is identified with a reference, usually on a post or sign with a number, use the ref tag to record the identification.
addr:unit=*	If the campground has a street address with official unit numbers for each camp pitch, then in addition to using ref=* a addr:unit=* may be used. This reflects the similarities between an individual camp pitch in a commercial campground with an apartment unit within an apartment building or complex. However, not all campgrounds have street addresses so using ref=* is the more generally relevant option.

Example

camp_site=camp_pitch + ref=A12

camp_site=camp_pitch + ref=230 + addr:unit=230

Applies to

• Nodes
• Areas

These nodes and areas should be located within an area tagged as tourism=camp_site or tourism=caravan_site

Rendering

The value of the ref=* tag could be rendered.

Can also be used by routing applications

Features/Pages affected

• Tag:tourism=camp_site - already mentioned on this page
• Tag:tourism=caravan_site - needs to be added to this page
• Key:camp_site - more details on camp_pitch should be added to the key page. There is a brief comment currently
• Tag:camp_site=camp_pitch - wiki page to be created

External discussions

See the Tagging mailing list discussion from April 2019

See also the related proposal: Proposed_features/Key:camp_pitch - the subkeys "camp_pitch:*" were originally developed in concert with the camp_site=camp_pitch proposal

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Voting

Therefore the voting period is extended for another 14 days, till the 22nd of May, 2019

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was rejected with 15 votes for, 14 votes against and 1 abstention.

Several people disapproved of using the key "camp_site=*", because it has already been used to define the service level of a tourism=camp_site, eg camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe. Some suggested using tourism=camp_pitch instead. Several people preferred using a new namespaced key, "camp_site:part", or a different value like "tourism=camp_site:part".

• I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. While this tag isn't perfect, the alternative suggestions are not perfect either. For example, tourism=camp_pitch could be confused with an independent features like tourism=camp_site, and would require retagging a large number of features. Therefore I think camp_site=camp_pitch is the best option to continue using. --Jeisenbe (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --TonyS (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- AlaskaDave (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Grimpeur78 (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Surveyor54 (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Dooley (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Fizzie41 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. —- The tag is inconsistent with the general scheme of tags and subtags in OpenStreetMap and specifically with some of the already used values for “camp_site” which describe a subtype of a camp site. —Dieterdreist (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I would have preferred tourism=camp_pitch (in line with schemes like amenity=parking and amenity=parking_space or leisure=sports and leisure=pitch). This way camp_pitch looks more like a specification of camp_site rather than being a distinct feature within. But since this has already been used so many times and for the sake of compromise I still vote yes. --TZorn (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --N76 (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. The tag is inconsistent with the general scheme of tags and subtags. camp_site=* describe caract of tourism=camp_site. something like tourism=camp_site:part is needed to describe a part of the whole tourism=camp_site. --Marc marc (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. The tag is in conflict with the tag chain, according to which camp_site=* describes the type of the tourism=camp_site. I think that camp_site:part=camp_pitch would make most sense. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I think too this is inconsistent. The key must be in tourism=*. Frodrigo (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Tag inconsistent with tag chain and general scheme --Deuzeffe (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. As mentioned upside, camp_site=* was previously reviewed as a level for tourism=camp_site (among other). It shouldn't be used to described features inside the actual site. Piches, homes, toilets... and so on should have their own naming convention for sake of consistency. Fanfouer (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. camp_site key does not fit for this use --Datendelphin (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. As already mentioned camp_site:part=camp_pitch makes sense. camp_site=camp_pitch does not --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. camp_site is the total area, camp_pitch is a part of that, a plot/space, the plot is a single area for one tent/caravan and could have ref name/number. camp_site=camp_pitch makes no sense. A good lined up hierarchy tree is important! --AllroadsNL (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I'd like a ":part" suffixed version better too. --Bkil (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Tagging camp pitches is needed but I too would like to see more consistent tagging in OSM. I don't like using popularity as an argument for best practice not to mention there are only about 7.3k tags of this current proposal in use sofar. The tag amenity=parking_space from the parking proposal is an analogous example for which this proposal should be consistent with. --DFyson (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Maripogoda (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. camp_site key does not fit for this use -- geozeisig
• I approve this proposal. This is already widely used, and useful. -- JesseCrocker
• I approve this proposal. I usually ignore tag voting procedures and use what mappers do, but as this is what mappers doo count this as yes. --giggls (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I do think, we need a tag for individual camp pitches, but it should more adhere to the common tagging scheme, i.e. some kind of sub-tag of tourism=camp_site --AGeographer (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Nacktiv (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. people who map large detailed campsites need a proper tag to go with the ref=* value. --Javbw (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. OSM needs a great logic on tagging. It appears that this proposal brokes that logic. --LB3AM (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Ok for a proper tag. Not this one.--JB (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)