Hello,

I just wrote a blogpost about campsite tagging in OSM on my blog.

Here is the URL: https://blog.geggus.net/2024/03/the-state-of-campsite-tagging-in-osm/

Please comment here if you like.

In the past I made the mistake that I took pull requests of foreign language support I do not speak or am at least not good enough at.

Thus I now added more features using English language and I would like to have people translating this to French, Spanish and Russian accordingly.

Please contact me if you can help.

Sven

Recently I started an attempt to make the campsites shown on https://opencampingmap.org googleable.

One part of this attempt will be an indexable list of campsites by country.

However, the main trouble with this seems to be broken mapping which will make the generation of such a list really cumbersome.

As an Example I came across this place: osm.org/way/335229905

There are multiple problems with this site in its current form. I will fix them later but use it as an illustration for a broken site first.

The main problem here are nodes tagged tourism=caravan_site and tents=yes which reside inside two polygons tagged tourism=camp-site.

As an example we have a node tagged:

• name =C11
• power_supply=yes
• tents=yes
• tourism =caravan_site

The way this node should be tagged instead is:

• tourism=camp_pitch
• caravans=yes
• tents=yes
• ref=C11
• power_supply=yes

Please do never map individual pitches as tourism=caravan_site or tourism=camp_site. Use tourism=camp_pitch instead.

This said, in this case even the two polygons are not individual camp-sites themselves.

What should be done instead is merging the two polygons tagged tourism=camp_site (osm.org/way/335229905 and osm.org/way/335229904) into one multipolygon with two outer rings as we are obviosly talking about one single campground rather than two. I also consider “Campground Loop A” a feature of one of these rings rather than its name. So best would be using the description tag on the to be created rings then.

The name tag of the to be created Multipolygons should then be Fort Pickens Campground which is surprisingly tagged on none of the objects currently.

I do not have local knowledge of this campground but there may well be camp-site features outside these polygons.

The way to map the site in this case would be a site relation. I wrote about this in my blog some time ago: https://blog.geggus.net/2021/09/announcing-support-for-site-relations-in-opencampingmap/

Since I started https://opencampingmap.org I do a lot of campsite-mapping.

Doing that I quickly realized, that just using capacity is ambiguous when used for campsites. Thus I just ignore it on my map and show it as a bug if used.

While there is often a limit on persons in backcountry campsites, tourist sites tend to have a limit regarding the number of tents or caravans!

So how to map? Well this is what I suggest to do:

• If the number of people allowed to use the site is limited tag capacity:persons appropriately.
• If the number of tents or caravans/RV is restricted use capacity:tents or capacity:caravans
• If the site has a fixed number of pitches and does not distinguish between using them with a tent or caravan/RV use capacity:pitches instead.

While I tend to keep OpenCampingMap as it is showing only the facts acquired in Openstreetmap some people argue that users want to have reviews on this kind of maps and that this is what makes Google Maps or TripAdvisor so attractive.

This might be true. Thus I have now added a button to an external FOSS review Portal called Mangroove Reviews as a proof of concept.

Unfortunately the current tagging of capacity on campsites is ambiguous at best. While on backcountry and scout sites capacity is often seen a the maximum number of persons allowed, on tourist sites mappers often tend to tag the number of pitches available for tents or caravans using this tag.

Thus following a recent discussion on the tagging mailinglist I changed this to be more consistent and similar to existing tags (caravans, tents).

I also changed the bugs view on https://opencampingmap.org/ to warn about the now obsoleted tags capacity and maxtents.

Now mappers should use the following tags instead:

capacity:persons for the maximum number of persons allowed to stay at a site if limited.

capacity:tents for the number of tent pitches available or maximum number of tents allowed.

capacity:caravans for the number of caravan pitches available or maximum number of caravans allowed.

I already changed this in the Wiki for German and English Language.

Please help me changing this in the Wiki for other languages as well.

I also need some help for fixing the localization of https://opencampingmap.org/ for French, Spanish an Russian language. Please contact me if you are a native speaker and can help me with a couple of sentences. Or just send a pull-request for the sourcecode at https://github.com/giggls/opencampsitemap

Starting from a pull request for https://opencampingmap.org at github https://github.com/giggls/opencampsitemap/pull/13 I added visualisation code for capacity and maxtents tags.

Unfortunately it is far from clear if capacity means people or number of camp pitches in case of campsites.

While the Wiki clearly states, that number of people are meant many mappers seem to think that we are talking about the number of pitches.

Unfortunately there is nothing I can do about this.

Any ideas?

For people who might be interested I wrote a short article about why development of German OSM Carto style is currently stuck in my blog:

https://blog.geggus.net/2020/09/why-development-of-german-osm-carto-style-is-currently-stuck/

Based on a suggestion from the OSM community I added a special symbol for campsites which will need work.

All sites without a name tag or only a name tag are now marked with a ! symbol.

https://opencampingmap.org/

I not a very skilled designer, so feel free to make better Icons which I can merge.

Happy mapping.

Sven

Hallo zusammen,

im OSM Standardstil wurde kürzlich die Farbe von landuse=farmland geändert.

Im deutschen Stil hatte ich den schon immer etwas anders nämlich heller und damit weniger deutlich sichtbar. Nun hat sich das etwas angenähert.

Nun frage ich euch was ihr denkt.

Übernahme der neuen Farbe aus dem OSM Standardstil oder beibehalten des bisherigen Farbtones?

http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/#14/49.0911/8.4955&num=2&mt0=mapnik&mt1=mapnik-german