Hm we did not even find an entrance.

Did this campsite actually exist back then?
I have been there at 31.5. and it did not look like it still existed. However there was a road sign still pointing to it. Maybe it reopened at 1.6. but I doubt this.

Hallo hier, Sven. Macher von OpenCampingMap.org. Gehört der Platzteil zum Betreiber nebenan? Wenn ja, dann mach bitte ein Multipolygon draus.

What is your intention about adding a tourism=camp_site object inside another one also tagged tourism=camp_site?

Did you mean tourism=camp_pitch?

Unfortunately I can not fix this myself without local Knowledge. On aerial image this looks like a pitch for caravans RV.

osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Warum hast Du diesen Node angelegt statt das bestehende Flächenobjekt zu aktualisieren?
Ich habe den neuen Node gelöscht und die Tags auf das ältere Objekt (die Fläche) übertragen.
Siehe auch
osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Es stimmt, bei tourism=caravan_site ist das nicht ganz so uneindeutig wie auf Campingplätzen aber es trägt trotzdem nicht zur Klarheit bei. Spätestens dann wenn man zwischen capacity:caravans und capacity:motorhome differenzieren möchte ist das auch hier nicht mehr eindeutig.
Ich markiere das aus https://opencampingmap.org jedenfalls als Fehler.

Übrigens gibt es beim mappen von tourism=caravan_site und tourism=camp_site noch jede Menge *erheblich* sinnvollere Beiträge zu leiste. Siehe mein Blogpost vor ein paar Tagen:
https://blog.geggus.net/2024/03/the-state-of-campsite-tagging-in-osm/

Der andere Platz ist ebenfalls diskutabel. Sobald es vollwertige sanitäre Anlagen mit Dusche gibt tagge ich eigentlich nie backcountry. Selbst wenn der Ort jwd ist.

Beispiel: https://opencampingmap.org/node/443051968

Moin,

als Author von https://opencampingmap.org kenne ich mich ein wenig mit tagging von campsites aus :)

camp_site=basic ist übriges etwas was ich komplett ignoriere, weil das IMO ein hoch subjektives Kriterium ist.

Der Platz erfüllt IMO jedenfalls nahezu keines der Dinge die ich für backcountry voraussetzen würde. Im Gegenteil: Es gibt vollwertige sanitäre Anlagen und die Lage ist nicht weit ab sondern city-nah.

Was ich stattdessen taggen würde:
caravans=no (warum hast Du das entfernt?)
motorhome=no
motorcar=no

Why did you revert my change? This is *not* a backcountry site.

👍
https://opencampingmap.org/node/296504817

oK, eventuell noch ein description Tag dazu machen, dass der Platz derzeit geschlossen ist.

Hallo,
hier ist Sven, der Author der OSM Campingkarte https://opencampingmap.org/
Was soll man sich denn unter access=no vorstellen?
Ich habe das im Code jetzt mal geändert und gleich eingestuft wie access=members (https://opencampingmap.org/node/296504817) aber eigentlich ergibt das keinen Sinn:
Eine Campingwiese die als Campingplatz für jeden verboten ist ist halt nur noch eine Wiese.
Eventuell ist also die Löschung des Nodes sinnvoller oder halt access=private. Was hat denn die Stadt am Telefon erzählt?

Well basically cycle-routing *did* lead us this way:
https://bikerouter.de/#map=16/56.9988/24.2664/osm-mapnik-german_style&lonlats=24.263241,56.996132;24.26624,57.003135&profile=trekking-ignore-cr

BTW only reason I went looking at the data exactly at this place afterwards because I think this was not a good idea.

In practice it was impossible for us to cross here reasonably fast with our 20kg of luggage when travelling by bike trough the baltic states by bike last year.

I will thus see if I can modify bikerouter profiles to ignore routes passing crossing=no nodes.

This said it looked completely crazy for me from my German point of view to map such a thing as any kind of "crossing".

Well access tag is about what is allowed to do not about what is possible to do.

I do not know about the legal status of crossing railways in Latvia but it is completely illegal to cross a railway at spots without a corresponding traffic-signs in my country (Germany).

A very similar example would be tracks and paths ending at a motorway where it is strictly illegal to use them for the general public.

An example would be this way:
way/106966611

Regards

Sven

Of cource this is Latvia but nevertheless this did not look like on the ground like an existing path either.
I actually *know* a little bit about OSm as I have been contributing for 17 years now.
However as I already said: This way should be tagged access=no either way.

While it might be common to map illegal crossings in Lithuania it is definitely not in my country.
This said if you actually *do* map such stuff which I still do not consider a good idea please tag them at least something like access=no.

Regards

Sven

Sorry, I do not speak french very well.

The sites might well get re-opened this year.
I have just marked the sites as browfield. I did not change something regarding their current state. Thus please discuss this in changeset/123989117: changeset/123989117

I do nor *remove* the site relations. I do evaluate them in a meaningfull way which means that they do not represent two camp-istes but onlytwo aspects of the same site.

Oh now I seem to understand what you did not get yet. I do not consider a site relation representing an actual geometry of a campsite itself but forming a couple of scattered objects related to *the* site which is a member of the relation.

Thus in my map I just assign all the related objects types as a feature to the camp_site inside the relation.

My database table for drawing campsites does not contain site-relations anymore. They are just used for adding actual features to the sites (area or node) themselves.

E.g.: Site relation contains a restaurant -> Add restaurant=yes to node or area member tagged as tourism=camp_site

This is what breaks my map.

Will I really need to make a list of what is broken in all those objects.

However, it is quite easy. All the objects outside the polygon or in case of campsite_points all of them are not shown in my map as features of the campsite anymore as they are no longer related.

E.g. Hollenbacher See has no fast-food and no playground. Oh and they are not part of the fenced campsite area thus mapping them as inside the polygon is simply wrong on the ground.

Frankly I do not think that it is a good idea to use the "One feature, one OSM element" practise as a dogma if violating it does make sense as it is the case here.

P.S.: I would like to end this discussion in the changese and try to clarify this issue on the tagging Mailinglist. See my post there:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2022-November/066389.html