Hello UK mappers, if there are any campers here I could really use your input. In Fixing tourism=camp_pitch (worldwide?) - #61 by ezekielf I am trying to understand if there are some semantic differences between how British English speakers and American English speakers use several camping related terms, or if we just use slightly different terms to mean exactly the same thing.
Does this diagram reflect how you use these terms, or have I got it wrong? As I understand it individual standalone camping spots are not common in the UK so this may be a hard question to answer. Any input is appreciated!
This language difference is likely because camping has historically been unlawful almost everywhere in the UK - our national parks are almost entirely comprised of private land - and so the only legal campsites tend to be larger privately-managed sites.
This is now no longer the case in Scotland, where there’s a right to roam and wild camp on private land by default, but it still is in the rest of the UK.
Whilst I would refer to the place we chose to pitch our tents for the night as a campsite whilst we were there it fails the fundamental verifiability required to be mapped in OSM.
To my British mind even if somewhere has only space for one tent it is a campsite. Pitches are areas within a campsite, usually allocated to a single unit often marked in some way.
I would agree that individual spots (for one or maybe two tents) to camp are camping pitches, and areas where there are multiple pitches (or multiple areas of individual fields) are generally called campsites. For example, a scouting campsite near me is called “blah Scout campsite” but is described as containing “11 individual campsites”, where each one is a field where you can set up tents. This is all a long winded way of saying I agree with the depiction in the second diagram It’s also worth noting that I don’t think I’ve heard the term “campground” used in British English.
Thank you all for sharing your understanding. This is very helpful.
This is the key thing I am digging after. So it seems that American English (AE) and British English (BE) use the term “campsite” in the same way when referring to an individual camping spot in a dispersed[1] camping area. But then the terminology diverges when it comes to a larger densely populated camping area[2]. In BE this continues to be called a “campsite”, while in AE we use the term “campground” for this.
The tourism=camp_site wiki page has always represented “BE campsite” and “AE campground” as meaning the same thing. Since this is not always true it has led to a seemingly incorrect understanding among some AE speakers that tourism=camp_site should only be used for large densely populated camping areas, and not for individual spots in a dispersed camping area. So tourism=camp_pitch has sometimes been used independently for these (i.e. not within a tourism=campsite). I’m guessing this usage would seem odd to you since referring to a small camping spot only as a “camping pitch” would also seem odd. Instead you would call it a campsite consisting of one pitch, right? As long as I am now understanding correctly, I’m hoping to improve the wiki to clear up this confusion. It seems Australian English speakers use campsite and campground in the same way as American English speakers so this confusion can affect them as well.
I would say that tourism=camp_site is analogous in my mind to amenity=parking and that tourism=camp_pitch is analogous to amenity=parking_space - something you would find within the campsite/car park, but not by itself.
Since I was partly responsible for for the “camp pitch” tagging, I guess I should pipe in. For detail mapping of a “campground” (American English) there are often but not always multiple “camp sites” (again American English). When I started mapping some campgrounds in areas I frequent there was no way to tag the individual sites along with the amenities that might be on a per site basis (table, fire ring, water, etc.). And “camp site” (British English) was already being used for what I’d call a campground so it could not be redefined. There was some discussion on the old email tagging lists about this and the suggestion from some UK based members was that an individual site within a campground should be called “pitch”. I went with it.
For backcountry camping there are sometimes slightly developed sites, perhaps limited to a an area with numbered posts and maybe fire rings. Those are generally signed and on the agency’s recreation maps and can be mapped the same as any other campground.
But more often camping is “dispersed” (lingo of the agency that I volunteer for). For dispersed camping all you really have are ad hoc camp sites. I personally would never map a dispersed camp site. What I might consider to be a wonderful place to pitch a tent and spend some time may vary from what others want and there is, or at least should be, no indication on the ground that it is a campground containing camp sites.
Exactly. These sort of sites are what I’d call designated dispersed campsites. I.e. there are designated campsites, unlike fully dispersed camping where you camp wherever you like, but the designated sites are dispersed (far apart from each other). Often these are in the backcountry, but sometimes they can also be vehicle accessible (i.e. not backcountry). Regardless it seems that each one of these campsites should be tagged tourism=camp_site even though each would only be considered to contain one pitch.
I agree. Neither tourism=camp_site or tourism=camp_pitch should be mapped in an area where dispersed camping is allowed but there are no designated campsites or habitual (informal) campsites visible on the ground.
I would rather say if they belong to one “camping area”, but the dedicated pitches are scattered around, you might want to create just one tourism=camp_site.
Yes in some cases if there is a named camping area with somewhat spread out campsites but also well defined bounds, modeling it as a single tourism=camp_site polygon can make sense. There are plenty of cases where the boundary isn’t well defined or the area happens to contain some campsites but is used for other purposes as well. Like for example a large National Forest that has various campsites randomly dotted throughout. Containing them all in a tourism=camp_site polygon could essentially mean tagging the entire National Forest as tourism=camp_site which would be misleading. A way around this has been demonstrated by using a site relation instead, but this only makes sense if the collection of campsites is at least somewhat physically near each other with a distinct identity that applies to the whole collection.
There are various unique situations, but it’s been demonstrated that a small standalone campsite is a thing that occurs in some places. What I’m hearing from the British English speakers in this thread is that they would call this individual thing a campsite and thus tourism=camp_site is the most appropriate tag to use for it.
It’s honestly a bit of a vague term. It’s possible some people may even consider a motor vehicle accessible place to be “backcountry” if it is quite remote and undeveloped (no buildings around) and the road to get there is a rough minimalist track. So don’t read too much into my statement above about vehicle access. Wikipedia explains it pretty well I think.
The usage of “backcountry” in AE depends on context which doesn’t work too well on a map. But backcountry skiing to me means, not cross-country or track (developed area), but climbing up and skiing down and not in a resort. In the Western US, that would generally be on US Forest Service land. But I imagine there are other interpretations. Off-piste, for example. OK I’d better stop.
But camping to some it means in a tent, to others it means in a motor home.
As a British skier the terminology again is slightly different. Our terminology is basically French, we ski on a piste and use the term off-piste when making our own way through the powder. This can involve climbing but often involves taking a different route from the lift. It can be within a resort but is in areas that are not patrolled or have avalanche protection.
My understanding of American resorts are much stricter and you can get shouted at for going off the marked piste, in Europe its up to you.
This was the broadly the case in the past (30-40 years ago), but these days American resorts have loosened up significantly. Many now heavily promote off piste skiing to attract adventurous skiers. Some small resorts near large population centers may still be strict about staying on marked pistes, but this is only because their clientele is overwhelmingly novice skiers.
For skiing, this is the definition I’d use. But not “off piste” as, in my mind, off piste generally starts on piste (using lifts, etc.) but then exits the ski area. Whereas for “backcountry skiing” you would be more likely to park the car at some suitable spot, put your skis on and head out into the woods or mountains. No lifts used at all. And not a “nordic” or “cross country” ski area either because there are no groomed trails.
However the topic is about camping and while there is such a thing as winter/snow camping I think most campers would never consider doing that. For me, backcountry camping would involve carrying everything you need in a backpack for a reasonable distance from the nearest road and ending up in an undeveloped area where dispersed camping is allowed. Basically “backpacking” but not always using designated remote (marked/posted/mapped) campgrounds.
It’s legal as you say in many holiday landholdings, fields/woods with landowner’s assuming local permission (quite often given for Scout Associations only) and I must add Dartmoor. We’re going to take it slowly as not only wetter here but also our density of population is more like New Jersey so more human waste to see clean ups of!
It’s also worth noting that I don’t think I’ve heard the term “campground” used in British English.