How to tag a holiday cabin site?

I’m mapping a site which contains a few small “holiday cabins”, each cabin for one family/group to sleep in; some of them include kitchen areas. In the north of the site, there’s a communal building with toilets, kitchens, firewood, etc.

How do I tag the site itself? I’m looking for something similar to tourism=caravan_site, but nothing on the wiki seems to apply.

I assume that the individual buildings would be tourism=chalets since it’s the tag that fits best, despite the cabins lacking “self-contained cooking and bathroom facilities”.

From you description this place is in between a camp-site with some cabins but no camping and a holiday chalet site whereas the little cabins do not really qualify for being chalets.

I would tag this place as tourism=chalet, whereas I would not use this tag for the single cabins but for the whole area, according to the wiki:

This could apply to single chalet or a group of chalets.

For the cabins within the area I would use building=cabin + appropriate tag for the amenities block.


Thanks - that’s a good summary of the situation. I’ll follow your advice and tag each cabin as a building=cabin. That said, the semantics of tourism=chalet is slightly confusing to me: is it OK for it to cover the entire site (including communal amenities) instead of simply a group of chalets/cabins?

Another thought: how would a data consumer differentiate between a chalet site and a single chalet? The original 2007 proposal describes nodes for individual chalets and an area to represent multiple - an assumption that hasn’t aged well. Perhaps it would be considered a single chalet if building=* is present?

This also popped up on the talk-gb mailing list recently. From looking at data there, it looks like some people used tourism=chalet for individual chalets (and leisure=resort on the park) and some people use it for the entire park. I’ve only sampled a few bits of the data; I haven’t seen which tagging method is more prevalent.

My interest was because I’m consuming the data for Garmin devices and ended up doing this:

Assume that tourism=chalet on a node is a self-contained chalet or
chalet park, and deserves one entry on the search menu as some sort of
accommodation that is not “resort”.

Assume that tourism=chalet on a way with no building tag is a
self-contained chalet park, and deserves one entry on the search menu as

Assume that tourism=chalet on a way with a building tag is a
self-contained chalet or chalet within a resort, and deserves one entry
on the search menu as some sort of accommodation that is not “resort”.


+1 to all of it. That’s exactly how I would describe it.

There were at leat a dozen similar discussions held in the german forum over the past years. Holiday village, resort, chalet, campsite, cabins and so on. Not always clearly to distinguish as in the given case. For me such an amenity is not what I would call a resort (which should at least offer some entertainment features). It’s not a campsite either and the buildings are not real chalets … :roll_eyes:.

I think it would be great to have a wiki side “Holiday villages” (or the like) as an overview, including recommendations how to map all this kind of facilities. Could be really helpful in such cases.

1 Like

If “communal” means these amenities are for the cabin guests only I would do so because in this case they are some kind of replacement for the missing "self-contained cooking and bathroom facilities”.
If “communal” means open to the public I would exclude it.

If you do not feel comfortable with tourism=chalet another option would be to map the area as tourism=campsite with tents=no + caravans=no + motorhome=no + cabins=< number > (or alternatively cabins=yes + capacity:cabins=< number >)

This could even be a better solution although tourism=chalet is more simple. Both options should be ok according to the descriptions given on the corresponding wiki pages.

1 Like

You’re right - the amenities are for the guests. tourism=chalet certainly seems like the way to go now - I’ll use that.

Thanks for the insight, SomeoneElse and Map_HeRo :slight_smile: