I am on holiday and enjoy being in a bungalow which is part of a holiday village. All buildings in this area are to be rented for holidays. In OSM, the whole village is marked as an areas which is tagged as tourism:chalet. The individual houses are simply buildings inside the chalet area.
Is this the inteded way of tagging a holiday village? Being a big OSM fan, I do a lot of walks in this village and add/correct data - and I have still a week to go that I could use to check everything in situ.
My experience (based on trying to consume this data) is that people use tourism=chalet both on entire villages of that and sometimes each individual chalet in a village. As an example, here is a village, and here is an individual building. It doesn’t make a lot of sense for both usages to be “correct”, but the wiki page accurately describes the tag as being used in both cases.
As can be seen elsewhere, trying to make usage in OSM less contradictory will generate some pushback with people saying that their usage is entirely correct.
Follow-up question: is it considered sufficient to tag a holiday home only with tourism=chalet, or should we also add an appropriate building tag? Wiki currently suggests that tourism=chalet is sufficient, and similarly, building=cabin suggests that tourism=chalet is an alternative, not a complementary tag.
However, I think that we traditionally require an additional building tag for every inhabitable building, regardless of other feature tags, and I’d like to edit the Wiki accordingly if that’s the consensus. So, I think, an individual holiday cottage should normally have tourism=chaletand building=yes/cabin/bungalow/hut/...
Thanks! For the “group of chalets” case, where you can rent individual self-catered, self-contained, detached holiday homes, the Wiki now suggests tourism=holiday_village as an attempted replacement.
But in this thread, =holiday_village was suggested not as a tag for a holiday resort but as a tag for a sort of campsite, a facility that can be rented as a whole by a school class, sports club, or youth group, and contains dormitories, shared bathrooms, shared sports facilities, and a dining hall with a capacity of 70.
If we ever sort out the ambiguity of tourism=chalet, it would be good in my opinion to have separate tags for these two types of facilities.
I’ve seen that one, and (although it wasn’t the primary focus of that discussion) I don’t like that they solved the problem with holiday_village, which is an apparent calque from German Feriendorf. However, “holiday village” means something else in English, much closer to leisure=resort. In my opinion,“Ferien” here referred to school holidays, and it quacks just like a leisure=summer_camp, despite not being used only in summer. Perhaps leisure=youth_camp could have been a better fitting term globally…
A “group of chalets” case is in Wikipedia described under the title holiday camp, which also mentions holiday park, resort, holiday village and holiday centre as alternative titles.
With the existing tags, we could also describe it as a tourism=camp_site; cabins=yes; tents=no; caravans=no, although it has a trolltag flavor: as the Wiki warns,
Note that while camp sites might (or might not) include occasional building=cabin or other housing accommodation, those are neither required nor indicative of tourism=camp_site (which is defined by having pitches for placing tents and/or caravans/RVs)
That is precisely what I thought when reading it, and the topic would benefit from its own thread instead of somewhere down a discussion about addressing.
The German word Feriendorf can mean either, but that alone isn’t reason to conflate both types of facilities under one tag.
(I wonder how the average leisure=summer_camp is used for the rest of the year? Do they just sit empty? Or should the tag name be taken a bit less literally?)
The one near me (which I tagged as a leisure=summer_camp), that I visited as a child back… then … actually operated for a good part of the year: during the school season, it hosted short-term “schools in nature” for lower grades and kindergartens; inter-school competitions such as literary or debating; short-term excursions by schoolchildren; and like. Possibly, some can be even rented by sports clubs or similar on a commercial basis.
If we ever sort out the ambiguity of tourism=chalet, it would be good in my opinion to have separate tags for these two types of facilities.
I agree, and my suggestion would be to include the word “camp” for the case that there are no buildings and reserve the term “village” for places where there are buildings
… actually operated for a good part of the year: during the school season, it hosted short-term “schools in nature” for lower grades and kindergartens; inter-school competitions such as literary or debating; short-term excursions by schoolchildren; and like. Possibly, some can be even rented by sports clubs or similar on a commercial basis.