Fixing tourism=camp_pitch (worldwide?)

[supsup]

As per wiki, tourism=camp_pitch

is the free space used to place a tent or caravan within a tourism=camp_site or tourism=caravan_site area.

Just to get it ouf of the way, I think the wiki is correct and sound and tagging should follow this rule. Data consumers will probably want to show campsites and caravan sites at much higher zooms than camp_pitches and users will be for sure interested in this data. The only user of data I know of that displays camp_pitches is JOSM and https://opencampingmap.org/.

There are now about 127 thousand of them. An overpass query shows about 40 thousand are not in an enclosed area as per wiki.

From what I looked, there are at least several classes of issues:

1. Only pitches are mapped, there is no object tagged as tourism=camp_site|caravan_site.
2. There is tourism=camp_site|caravan_site but only as a node, not an area
3. tourism=camp_pitch is wrong and tourism=camp_site was meant.
4. Than there is somewhat and orthogonal problem when people tag places in the backcountry that are suitable for placing tents but there is nothing on the ground, presumeably, and it is unknown whether it is strictly legal (tourism=camp_site is supposed to be only for legal places, but as far as I can tell, that is widely ignored).
5. Probably others.

For 1) and 2), it seems the fix is straighforward, just draw the area. As per earlier thread, it can be made more precise later, and given there are pitches mapped already, the minimal extent of the area is clear even without local survey.

Then 3) Is very simple, just change the tag.

For 4), it is a subclass of 3) and these can probably be converted to

tourism=camp_site
camp_site=basic
backcountry=yes
(sometimes possibly with `informal=yes`)

As far as I am concerned, it is for others to delete them if they think they should not be in OSM at all and it would need surveying anyway (also relevant my older thread here).

Up until now, I have mostly mapped only places I have physically been to. If I were to work on it, I would need to review them manually (though sometimes edits by one user like a series of changestes like this can be edited in one go to change hundreds of tags at once), so it would not be an automated edit. Still, I want to ask the community about this before I start on this. Of course, OSM being volunteer driven, I do not guarantee to fix everything, it looks like quite a major task :-).

I originally started an iD issue to add an automated check for this, and then started to examine how widespread the problem is, leading me to write this thread.

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

@supsup

The only user of data I know of that displays camp_pitches is JOSM and https://opencampingmap.org/.

There are a few listed at taginfo, and probably others as well.

[Woazboat]

@supsup

For 4), it is a subclass of 3) and these can probably be converted to

tourism=camp_site
camp_site=basic
backcountry=yes
(sometimes possibly with `informal=yes`)

I disagree, I think it’s wrong to tag isolated tent pitch sites as a ‘camp site’. The camp_site=basic tag would become a troll tag if it’s used for cases like this. It should only be used for actual established larger camp sites that aren’t just a single tent pitch in the wilderness.

I also don’t really see a problem with tagging (verifiable) single isolated backcountry camp/tent pitches as standalone camp_pitch POIs without a surrounding camp_site area. That closely matches the reality on the ground and is the best way to model this.
Strictly enforcing a requirement for a surrounding camp_site area because of a dogmatic adherence to whatever a short summary sentence on the wiki says would just make the data worse and muddy the usability of both camp_site and camp_pitch tags.

[ezekielf (Zeke Farwell)]

@supsup

As per wiki, tourism=camp_pitch

is the free space used to place a tent or caravan within a tourism=camp_site or tourism=caravan_site area.

…

An overpass query shows about 40 thousand are not in an enclosed area as per wiki.

It wouldn’t be the first time mappers disagreed with the wiki and tagged as they saw fit. So either the wiki should get updated to reflect the reality of how the tag is being used, or all mappers of standalone tourism=camp_pitch will need to be convinced that they are wrong.

[supsup]

@ezekielf

It wouldn’t be the first time mappers disagreed with the wiki and tagged as they saw fit. So either the wiki should get updated to reflect the reality of how the tag is being used, or all mappers of standalone tourism=camp_pitch will need to be convinced that they are wrong.

By looking at the actual data, it seems to me a vast majority of the nodes are in proper camping_sites that are mapped as a node. I see a camping site mapped as an area as a clear improvement. In this particular case, I see that wiki as an ideal that we can strive for. There could be a sentence in the wiki: “often, pitches are mapped while the encompassing camp site is mapped as a node, if that is the case, consider remapping the site as an area”, but in any case I see camp_pitches mapped like that as a work-in-progress.

@Woazboat

I disagree, I think it’s wrong to tag isolated tent pitch sites as a ‘camp site’. The camp_site=basic tag would become a troll tag if it’s used for cases like this. It should only be used for actual established larger camp sites that aren’t just a single tent pitch in the wilderness.

That is exactly what that tag is about however:

A basic campsite or basic campground is an area that is nothing more than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle.

@Woazboat

That closely matches the reality on the ground and is the best way to model this.

Why is this not better:

tourism=camp_site
camp_site=basic
backcountry=yes
informal=yes
tents=yes
capacity:tents=1

@Woazboat

would just make the data worse and muddy the usability of both camp_site and camp_pitch tags.

I think it is the opposite. Look at all he camp pitches here (the litle red squares):

Here you have how opencamping, that was presumably made to consume this data, displays it:

Nothing is shown. It expects certain meaning from the tags, and the tags do not adhere to the meaning. So the tags are less useful.

Plus, quite often these tags actually have descriptions like “2-3 camp pitches here” or “place for several tents” etc. I am not debating now whether such things should be in OSM at all (a case can be made that they should not and anybody is welcome to delete those), but how exactly are they more useful not mapped as camp_sites. From the wiki and from how data users display this tag, they show camp_sites at a much higher zoom, because when you are travelling/hiking, you might be looking at a place to sleep on any given day that can be at quite a distance for you. In such a case, even a place for one tent is useful to a hiker (or a lone car). Where exactly are the pitches on the ground is only useful in great detail when you are about to pitch your tent. There is a logic behind the proposal (back from 2019), why support chaos instead of trying to make the map more usable? Of course it is imperfect and camp_pitch is better than nothing, but it does lack a camp_site tag.

Another frequent case is true backcountry camping site with several pitches in close vicinity - that exactly matches the the definition of basic_camp.

From my experience as a hiker, these things are mapped quite often, usually they lack anything on the ground, but are useful (I do not add them but I do not delete them, I usually add camp_site=basic so that it can be rendered differently from proper camping sites, as it is by at least some apps I use). Very rarely do they consist of an actual single build up recognizable pitch. Most often they denote “area suitable for pitching tents”. Again, maybe that should not be in OSM at all, but when it is, camp_pitch is very rarely the proper tag, as they are usually not one single tent pitch.

[ezekielf (Zeke Farwell)]

@supsup

Look at all he camp pitches here (the litle red squares):

OpenTrailStash and OpenTrailMap are two other maps that show camping spots. Here’s that location on these two maps showing tourism=camp_pitch nodes rendered.

https://open.trailsta.sh/#14/33.66338/-111.27075

https://opentrailmap.us/#map=13.27/33.66219/-111.26489

[supsup]

@ezekielf

OpenTrailStash and OpenTrailMap are two other maps that show camping spots. Here’s that location on these two maps showing tourism=camp_pitch nodes rendered.

Well, OpenTrailMap then renders an actual campsite in the peninsula in the north in quite an ugly way:

And OpenTrailStash does not show the individual pitches until you zoom lower, making them less useful:

That kind of proves my point.

[Woazboat]

@supsup

@Woazboat

I disagree, I think it’s wrong to tag isolated tent pitch sites as a ‘camp site’. The camp_site=basic tag would become a troll tag if it’s used for cases like this. It should only be used for actual established larger camp sites that aren’t just a single tent pitch in the wilderness.

That is exactly what that tag is about however:

That doesn’t make it any less of a troll tag. I’d argue that being intentionally defined like that is even worse than people (mis)using it for that purpose.

---

@supsup

Here you have how opencamping, that was presumably made to consume this data, displays it:

Nothing is shown. It expects certain meaning from the tags, and the tags do not adhere to the meaning. So the tags are less useful.

These informal backcountry camp pitches not being lumped in with camp sites in general is a *feature*, not a bug.

There is a world of difference between this

and this

Showing this kind of backcountry camp pitch should be a deliberate opt-in choice by map makers for specialized outdoor maps who are interested in this type of feature, not a tripwire for every other map that has to make extra efforts to filter out camp sites that aren’t actually camp sites and a hundred other gotchas for other features with troll tags.

Finding and showing these camp pitches on specialized outdoor maps is absolutely possible already as @ezekielf demonstrated.

---

Take a guess which of these are actual camp sites and how many are flat-ish spots on the ground where you could potentially fit a tent. They all look the same on general purpose maps that don’t have extra special handling for this.
(Beside the fact that many are just tagged as tourism=camp_site without any other tags that could be used to make a distinction even when you have the data and not just the map display.)

---

@supsup

Well, OpenTrailMap then renders an actual campsite in the peninsula in the north in quite an ugly way:

@supsup

And OpenTrailStash does not show the individual pitches until you zoom lower, making them less useful:

@supsup

That kind of proves my point.

I’m not entirely sure what point this is proving? Those are rendering decisions of those specific map styles. Tagging a backcountry camp pitch as a camp site so it’s shown bigger on a map isn’t a solution.

[supsup]

@Woazboat

That doesn’t make it any less of a troll tag. I’d argue that being intentionally defined like that is even worse than people (mis)using it for that purpose.

Well, it depends on what is the core of a camping ground. If it is a place where you can sleep if you have a tent (my understanding of it), I would not say it is a troll tag. I do share your concern tha it might be misleading when both are rendered the same, but that is what the other tags are for and assuming that you will be able to have shower/rent a cabin/charge your phone/whatever just based on one simple tag with tourism=camp_site is a wrong inference. typically, in an actual campsite, at least toilets and some kind of reception building is mapped nowadays, so if there are no signs of civilization, you can already now assume this is a simple backcountry site. I do agree these should be verifiable, so I personally would never map something where I could not see “this is a place that people use to sleep”. Anyway, what you are arguing for is actually a third tag, somethng like tourism=wilderness_habitual_campground. camp_pitch is already defined and I could produce a world of difference pitures between a meadow and an actual camp_pitch with electrical socket, fireplace, tables and chairs etc.

However, given how the tagging is already being used I think you are advocating for a skunked tag. If camp_pitches adhere to the wiki definition, at least the tags can be used and filtered properly.

@Woazboat

I’m not entirely sure what point this is proving? Those are rendering decisions of those specific map styles. Tagging a backcountry camp pitch as a camp site so it’s shown bigger on a map isn’t a solution.

The problem is that what is tagged as “camp_pitch” in these cases is not what a “camp_pitch” means in OSM. The problem is we here have three kind of things:

1. managed campgrounds
2. backcountry facilities-less campgrounds
3. individual piteches

You would like three different primary tags for them, I agree that would be an ideal solution. But that ship has sailed it seems. So instead we have a secondary “camp_site” tag. It is not unlike tags like surface and smoothness for highway, as what is tagged is a function, not any state of developement.

Data consumers just have to consume additional tags when they consume campsite. Already about one sixth have backcountry to them. I do not think it is feasible to invent a new primary tag and retag them :-(.

[arctic-rocinante]

Is there anything to be learned from the situation with playgrounds and play equipment? It sounds quite similar: normally play equipment nodes appear within playground areas, but not 100% of the time.

In the real world, you sometimes do come across a lone seesaw (for example) that nobody would consider a “playground” in its own right. You could argue that it’s technically a playground because kids play on it, but IMHO that has more drawbacks than benefits.

The wiki even notes this possibility, and I’ve not noticed it causing problems in practice.

Maybe the campground situation is different enough that this doesn’t help though

[supsup]

Let’s look at this node:

Node: 12191914981

Description says “Several spots.” This is clearly not “camp_pitch”.

[Fizzie-DWG (Graeme Fitzpatrick)]

Personally, I don’t understand why we have both Tag:tourism=camp_site - OpenStreetMap Wiki & Tag:tourism=caravan_site - OpenStreetMap Wiki ?

[ezekielf (Zeke Farwell)]

@arctic-rocinante

Is there anything to be learned from the situation with playgrounds and play equipment? … normally play equipment nodes appear within playground areas, but … you sometimes do come across a lone seesaw (for example) that nobody would consider a “playground” in its own right.

Yes this seems similar to me. I basically think about camp sites and camp pitches the same way. A camp site is an area where there are at least a few camp pitches, but sometimes there is just a lone camp pitch by itself and I wouldn’t call that a camp site^[1].

I can see some sense in using one primary feature tag for any camping area no matter how small or large and then another tag only to specify pitches within a larger camping area. If I was designing a tagging scheme for this I’d go with something like leisure=camping_area for the primary feature tag, and then maybe camping_area:part=pitch for the individual pitches. The namespaced key would hopefully communicate to mappers that the pitch tag was only to be used within a leisure=camping_area polygon, similar to how a building:part=* is only used within a building=*. Instead, the two tags are leisure=camp_site^[2] and leisure=camp_pitch. They both use the leisure=* key, making them seem to both be primary feature tags. The structure of the tags does not suggest that one always belongs within the other. The wiki states this, but clearly mappers haven’t always followed the wiki. It’s not clear to me that this is a huge problem though.

---

1. At least not when translating the American English terms I normally use into British English terms. ↩︎

2. Also leisure=caravan_site, but I’m just omitting that for simplicity’s sake here ↩︎

[supsup]

I guess there is a number of facilities where no tents are allowed and you need to have a car to be able to sleep in them? But not sure.

@ezekielf

If I was designing a tagging scheme for this

Yes, that would probably have been better.

@ezekielf

The wiki states this, but clearly mappers haven’t always followed the wiki. It’s not clear to me that this is a huge problem though.

I do not think it is huge but still sometihng worthy of fixing. It would be a minor improvement to the map.

I personally can go with a stance that having an isolated camp_pitch is sort of valid ,but suboptimal. My point that these are in practice rarely used in teh backcountry to actually tag a single pitch notwithstanding.

[Fizzie-DWG (Graeme Fitzpatrick)]

@supsup

I guess there is a number of facilities where no tents are allowed and you need to have a car to be able to sleep in them?

That could have been the original idea, but it would have been easily solved by tents=yes/no, caravans=yes/no, cabins=yes/no etc

[Lostmonkey]

Not nessarily disagreeing but simply trying to understand the issue:

@Woazboat

That doesn’t make it any less of a troll tag. I’d argue that being intentionally defined like that is even worse than people (mis)using it for that purpose.

Why do you think camp_site=basic is a troll tag negating/inverting meaning of tourism=camp_site? Doesn’t it merely classify the camp site in terms of facilities?

@Woazboat

There is a world of difference between this

So bascially, as I understand, it is in fact possible to distinguish between such very different types of camp sites by using the tags as already defined by the wiki (e.g. basic vs. serviced) but because people often don’t bother to add those qualifying tags you would prefer changing the (OSM) meaning of a camp pitch (to better align with what you think people instinctively perceive a pitch to be)?

Since English is not my native language, I may be misunderstanding the issue, but in my own language the (OSM) translation of “camp pitch” is clearly distinct in meaning from “camp site” and I would expect that few mappers would use it on its own, without it being part of a larger camp site.

[Fizzie-DWG (Graeme Fitzpatrick)]

@Lostmonkey

classify the camp site in terms of facilities

I have some concerns about the scale listed at Key:camp_site - OpenStreetMap Wiki I wouldn’t say “standard” sites are “lower end”, while if a site has a laundry & a swimming pool, it becomes “deluxe”?

IME, most parks would be called “standard”, almost all include a laundry, & certainly aren’t “lower end”.

I’d also think that it would need more than just a swimming pool to up a site to deluxe!

[Lostmonkey]

It’s possible that the categories of facilities need to be adjusted, but regarding the other point, I’m still trying to understand what exactly it is people are objecting to in regards to using the current tagging system recommended by the wiki.

Sure, if the tagging system doesn’t make sense to the majority of users, it might need addressing. But that’s what I’m unsure about since I actually think it seems like a reasonable way to organize the camp sites by type. And a tagging that can already accommodate all types. Also, if we agree to start using camp_pitch by itself (as a type of camp site), would it still make sense to also use it to mark places inside a camp site?

[dieterdreist (Martin Koppenhöfer)]

@Fizzie-DWG

I’d also think that it would need more than just a swimming pool to up a site to deluxe!

it also depends on the climate how common swimming pools at camp sites are, and there is a huge difference between a swimming pool and a swimming pool. Many sites that are on lakes or the sea also don’t have swimming pools because of the alternatives

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

@Fizzie-DWG

most parks would be called “standard”, almost all include a laundry

Well, the slang term “soap dodger” is sometimes used to refer to UK tourists in Australia - that might explain the different expectations

More seriously people are trying to tag places in the range of “Here is somewhere I can physically pitch my tent, with nothing and nowhere else for miles around” to “basically a resort, with tents”. In that wide range, laundry definitely is luxury, but that is a far wider range than I would personally tag as a tourism=camp_site.

You could argue that as defined in the wiki tourism=camp_site is essentially a “troll tag” since it is defined as that complete range. The tag camp_site= is defined by the wiki as being needed to separate out that wide range, yet its usage is tiny compared to tourism=camp_site.

I suspect that we need to fix the wiki to better match how tourism=camp_site is used before moving on to tourism=camp_pitch later.

A search for basic somewhat near me turns up a few that I would describe as “basic” but all do have at least some infrastructure (I’m in England, and wild camping here generally isn’t legal and isn’t much practiced).