There is a category of places for which I am struggling to find the right tagging, namely “camps” which are places where rafting, canoeing or other outdoor activities are based, but it might also be motorcycle events. These often have the word “Camp” (or “Kamp” or “Kemp”) in the name of the site operator (company or association), in particular in (south)eastern Europe. This may perhaps have contributed to the effect that many of these places are currently being tagged as tourism=camp_site, although they are clearly not a camp site: Neither spaces for tents nor caravans are foreseen. Sometimes cabins exist, but the target customers are people engaging in the outdoor activities offered. leisure=resort seems too fancy (both in my mental picture of a “resort” and the description in the wiki) and leisure=summer_camp is inappropriate, because this is explicitly a place for supervised recreation camps for children or teenagers.
Is there a better tag for such sites or should one just remove the tourism=camp_site where it is unambiguously clear that this is incorrect tagging?
not if camping is not allowed (intended), and if the site is perfectly accessible by car/motorcycle, no? E.g. the “rafting camp” between the main road and the river with some cabins or a club house.
If camping isn’t allowed, it shouldn’t be tagged as a camp-site at all, but if it is allowed, even if there is nothing there but an empty patch of grass, then camp-site + basic + backcountry (if it is remote) + all the other tags - power=no, toilets=no, water=no etc should be fine. Wouldn’t hurt to even include a description= Occasionally used for organised group camping but no facilities at all on site & not intended for individual use
Exactly, it shouldn’t. I mean sites that are obviously not designed (intended by the operator) as a campsite but are mapped as such, and for which at least I cannot find another tag that suits better, because “summer camp” is reserved for organised children’s activities (otherwise I feel this would be the best match) and “resort” feels too high ranking.
I agree that strictly speaking, if the site operator allows visitors to use a tent or a camper van instead of booking a room or a cabin, the criterion for camp_site is fulfilled. But with this argumentation, farms and private gardens where backpackers have sometimes obtained permission to stay overnight, and large parts of Scandinavian wilderness (as mentioned elsewhere) would be a campsite.
To clarify, I think we’re talking about places that simply rent sports equipment and/or offer guided tours using said sports equiment (and possibly other side activities) I.e. cayak rental and tour service.
That place is tagged with leisure=sports_centre . This is a bit awkward too, as that tag is documented to be the facility where sports takes place. Obviously the kayaks they rent would be used on the nearby river instead.
And I guess the various side activities they offer aren’t really framed as “sports”, i.e. you don’t go to that place for serious archery practice.
Browsing wiki, I found little-used and poorly documented leisure=recreation_centre. On the map, I located this outdoor-activity center in the Netherlands (https://hiawatha-actief.nl/) that seems to match your description as well. (It’s been double-tagged as an amenity=community_centre, apparently for the renderer. )
It’s apparently distinct from a recreation_ground since it’s not a ground, but a hub for activities that take place in the surroundings. But then, browsing around, it doesn’t seem to be consistently applied in that sense:
Thank you, leisure=recreation_centre seems to make sense. It will depend on how it is used (if used more) and described in the wiki (according to usage then).
Meanwhile, I have also found such companies offering rafting or kayak tagged as amenity=boat_rental, which of course describes one aspect.
Other features present would/could still be tagged accordingly, e.g. a restaurant, chalets or cabins, or part of the grounds may indeed be a camp_site.
)