I have been wondering when to use the backcountry-key or the camp_site=basic tag.
In Denmark we have a lot of designated sites where you are allowed to camp (in a lean-to or in your own tent) and many of these have been tagged backcountry=yes. Apparently we use the backcountry-key much more that our neighboring countries. Perhaps because there are simply many more such designated campsites in Denmark where we do not have Allemansrätten as in Sweden or Norway. Or maybe because Danish mappers interpret the meaning of this tag very differently.
It seems [discussion] that some believe that remoteness and no accessibility for motor vehicles defines a campsite with the backcountry-tag. However I think it is fair to say that very few of these primitive campsites in Denmark are truly remote and/or inaccessible for motor vehicles. I would guess that the majority of the Danish “backcountry” campsites are no more than few hundred meters from the nearest road. Often there is parking very close.
I was thinking that perhaps camp_site=basic would be more appropriate for such campsites. However, according to the Wiki these should be “A basic campsite or basic campground is an area that is nothing more than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle.” Problem is that many of the Danish backcountry campsites do have some basic facilities like a firepit, lean-to, compost toilet, water tap, and picnic-table.
On the other hand the Wiki also says that a backcountry campsite is normally without facilities but adds that “occasionally” some do offer them and then can be added using the amenity=* tag. Can the same be true for camp_site=basic?
Bottom line: How do you tag a campsite that only has (very) basic facilities and is only to be used for tents or lean-tos (not a place to park an autocamper) but are also not at all remote?
I’m also interested in hearing the different practices of mapping such “wild” campsites because I’m a frequent user. I know of 2 practices:
In the Netherlands, there used to be sites called “paalkampeerterrein” where it was allowed to camp with up to 3 tents within a few meters from a wooden pole. Only 7 remain open, all tagged with backcountry=yes. We used 2 of them last month. One was right next to a track with parallel cycle path, and barely large enough for our tent and a bike, with no facilities. The other was much larger and had a picnic table, and could only be reached on foot (we had dismount our tandem). I believe they are similar to the Danish concept, and there appear to be many more in Belgium.
Along the Carian Trail in Turkey, two kinds of camping spots are mapped here and on OSM: those with or without a fee. The free ones seem to be mere suggestions “if you want to camp wild and are looking for a spot, try here” so they seem good candidates for tagging with backcountry=yes. Maybe backcountry campsites are usually (by default?) free?
Maybe in countries like Denmark where wild camping is not allowed, a criterion for backcountry campsites is that they have some form of official status? And Sweden and Norway don’t have as many wild camping spots mapped because there aren’t many that have official status (you don’t need official ones if you can camp anywhere anyway)?
I think it should be Ok to add these facilities to a camp_site=basic, as the Wiki also says " camp_site=basic Nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle. Roadside stops, undeveloped parts of National Parks or crown land as long as it is feasible and legal to do so. May be synonymous with backcountry=yes if motorized access is not allowed."
So backcountry is just an addition to basic in case you should not use it when arriving by car or motorcycle…
Maybe backcountry is used more often than basic because the taginfo has not yet been translated to German…
If that is the criteria then there is definitely many of the Danish campsites that do not fit the backcountry tag. Although you are rarely allowed or can drive all the way into the campsite very often there are parking options nearby. Actually my impression is that originally these sites were mostly intended for hikers and touring cyclists but today they are promoted also as places to drive to in your car with all your gear and spend a night in nature, which many do.
I used a few of these campsites with shelters myself last year. Several of them actually have facilities such as a simple toilet, drinking water, sometimes even a shower (nearby) and in a few exceptions there are even sockets in the immediate vicinity (for charging devices). Camp_side=basic doesn’t really fit here, these are more like camp-side=standard. I still think the backcountry is correct, the German wiki states: “Use is usually reserved for hikers, cyclists or canoeists.”
I’m guessing that what might have happened here is that a native speaker of American English** wrote the page and then added some more description. Unfortunately the added description on its own is ambiguous, without an understanding of the original term. It’d be a bit like saying “all dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs therefore my cat is a dog”***.
There are a number words in OSM that mean slightly or very different things to the original words in British English. Some of those we’re stuck with but it would make sense to me to try and avoid promoting new ones. I’d suggest promoting camp_site=basic as a way of saying that facilities are basic and reserve backcountry for actual backcountry sites (which I suspect that there will be none of in England, Wales or Denmark.
** “backcountry” isn’t really used in England and Wales, mainly because as noted above there isn’t much undeveloped land, and the concept of wild camping mostly isnt legal.
*** it sounds silly written like this, but if you replace “dog” with some obscure term that few people understand, it sounds much less so.
Perhaps the popularity of the backcountry tag is partly because how much more easy it is to add a backcountry campsite in the iD Editor where searching for ‘campsite’ presents the ‘Backcountry Camping Area’ but not a ‘Basic campsite’ option? (As far as I can tell)
Also when editing a campsite it is simply a matter of ticking the Backcountry-box instead of manually having to add camp_site=basic.
In the Danish iD translation the Backcountry-box is called ‘Primitiv overnatning’ (Primitive overnight stay) which actually sounds more fit for camp_site=basic, so it is probably understandable that the remoteness implied by ‘backcountry’ is not considered.
I actually already do Danish translations but figured I would try to better understand this backcountry vs. basic issue before making any changes. I have raised the same question in the Danish subforum but have not had much response. So I think I will go ahead and correct the backcountry translation.
Regarding adding the camp_site= field to the tourism=camp_site preset: Why don’t I see the same ‘Type’ selector in my editor? Is your pull request adding this?
The screenshot is from a preview version of iD that can be accessed here.
It will only make its way into the “real” version of iD if the iD maintainers review it and approve it. But I’ve asked them not to review it yet because I wanted community input first. If you (and possibly others who are interested in the topic) think it looks good I will let them know it’s ready for review.
Will it be a problem that people then maybe will no longer bother to also add tags like toilets=, shower=, drinking_water=* ?
Another thing: Currently when adding a new point/area and doing a search for ‘camping’ could the suggestions include “Basic camping” the same way they do “Backcountry Camping Area” currently?
This seems reasonable. The proper way to promote it would be a Proposal and a WIki edit accompanying it afterwards, wouldn’t it? I’ve never done this but might start a Proposal for it. What would be the procedure for this?
The proposal for camp_site and the four values basic, standard, serviced and deluxe was approved in 2015. It just seems like it never made it into any presets.
Not sure. I guess people usually add as much information as they can?
I can ask the iD maintainers if they would be happy with that. I guess it would need to be for all four values. That might be too much? To be honest I am not sure why there are separate presets for backcountry and group-only campsites, instead of that just being a tick box under campsite.
I understand it might be different in other parts of the world, but here it seems obvious that there is more need for a preset for a basic campsite than for a backcountry one. But yes, maybe too much if it has to be all four types of camp_site=*. Probably better with just tourism=camp_site, which you then have to qualify afterwards.
I do not use ID but JOSM so I should not say anything about the presets there
If everybody would qualify it afterwards yes then it would be better but sometimes all you find on the map is tourism=camp_site and it is just a spot where you can pitch a tent - even less than backcountry. If these spots were always marked as backcountry either as camp_ground=backcountry or backcountry=yes it would be nice - but probably more than we can expect from the average mapper…
iD now includes the option to use the camp_site= tag in the preset.
I’d like to update the Wiki page for backcountry= to reflect the outcome of this discussion: Explain what the backcountry is, for someone who has never heard the English term. Give examples of backcountry campsites to illustrate (in North America, where the term originated). Explain that the tag has sometimes been misunderstood and applied to any campsite without facilities, regardless of whether it’s actually in the backcountry or not. Explain that a 2024 community forum discussion agreed that the appropriate tag for any camp site with no facilities is camp_site=basic and that the tag backcountry=yes should be reserved for camp sites that are in fact in the backcountry.
Are people happy with that?
We could then also revisit some of the camp sites tagged backcountry=yes and where we are sure they are not in the backcountry (e.g. they are in the middle of a town or right next to a car park), remove the tag. (One by one, from aerial imagery, I’m not proposing a mass edit.)
I added a Danish translation for the wiki-page. However, I am a little puzzled by the last sentence:
“Note that some mappers tag mere suggestions where they think there is a good place to sleep. If that is the case, you might find no traces of people using such a place for camping.”
Should such informal sites with no visible trace be mapped at all? Shouldn’t informal use have at least left traces that can be confirmed in the field?
