Deprecation of `camp_site=reception`?

General talk Tagging general discussion
1

Hi

The tag camp_site=reception was marked as deprecated and I can’t see a discussion - is everyone happy with this?

As a bit of background,

  • the tag camp_site=reception had been recommended on the tourism=camp_site page since 2009
  • a 2009 proposal to introduce this tag, alongside others, never went to a vote
  • a 2015 proposal to introduce amenity=reception_desk (not specifically for camp site receptions) was rejected
  • in 2021 the tourism=camp_site page was changed to recommend amenity=reception_desk instead of camp_site=reception
  • finally, in 2023, the camp_site=reception tag was marked as deprecated
  • looking at actual tagging, there are 930 amenity=reception_desks inside a tourism=camp_site and 908 camp_site=receptions inside a tourism=camp_site

I have no real problems with the deprecation: the key clashes with the approved camp_site= classification scheme and it’s less widely used than the alternative amenity=reception_desk. But it means we’re in the slightly awkward situation that the Wiki now recommends a rejected (but slightly more widely used) tag. And we’ve had issues with deprecations by individual Wiki users that had not been discussed with the community, so I wanted to give others a chance to comment.

2

The tag camp_site=reception was marked as deprecated and I can’t see a discussion - is everyone happy with this?

I think it is fine to discourage the tag because a reception isn’t a kind of camp site and the tag camp_site=* should be about types of camp sites

2 Likes
3

It looks to me like the change added the template text “The reason is documented in Deprecated features”, but no reason is documented on that page. IMHO Failing to either follow the “process” on that or at least link a discussion on the talk page is a good enough reason to just revert, “Any Tags You Like” is the stronger principle.

Prior to this the page already said: “Note that using this tag is not really ideal since it turns camp_site=* into a homonymous key”. Strengthening that wording a bit to mention the conflicting proposal for that might be a good idea.