As a proof that update still works here is an object that has been newly added just yesterday: https://opencampingmap.org/#15/53.0470/13.2896/4/1/bef/way/1082491129

@lyx: We are discussing a similar issue on github: https://github.com/giggls/opencampsitemap/issues/12

@yvecai: Database replication is working fine. If you provide the OSM-ID of the object you added I can have a look into the POI database.

See wiki for import guidelines:

osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

Imports should be discussed on the [email protected] mailing list.

Sehe ich nicht so, bin eher Team Brouter. Gibts als Webversion: http://brouter.de/brouter-web/ und als Android Routing Backend.

Hallo,

Autor von https://opencampingmap.org hier. Da ist was das Taggen des Platzes angeht ja noch Luft nach oben :)

Meine bug view meckert über die fehlenden sanitären Anlagen und die Website ist veraltet.

Wenn Du detaliertes Micromapping machen möchtest wie in der angrenzenden Kleingartenanlage, dann schau mal hier: https://opencampingmap.org/#19/48.64601/8.03543/1/1/bef/way/211554090

Gruss

Sven

Thanks.

I wonder if we should also try to establish a capacity:pitches tag as an alternative to capacity:caravans and capacity:caravans.

The rationale behind this is that there are quite a lot of sites where only the number of pitches is counted and people with tents have to use one of those as well rather than a separate tent only area.

Hm,

my bug viewer in Open Camping Map is not yet satisfied :)

https://opencampingmap.org/#18/48.90978/7.28719/1/1/bef/way/250042689

Dieser Satz ist strenggenommen falsch:

“Die Datenbank selber wird von FOSSGIS e.V. betrieben.”

Richtig wäre:

“Die Datenbank wird rechtlich von der Openstreetmap-Foundation betrieben, deren local Chapter der FOSSGIS e.V. ist.”

You know that the map on osm.org is mainly for mappers rater than users of our data? UI is nice to have and patches are certainly welcome, but as always in FOSS projects if you want to improve the project you will have to contribute.

Oh wow, you did not know about Open Camping Map?

Camper Sites can also be activated, but are not active by default:

https://opencampingmap.org/#10/48.8530/8.1436/1/1/fff

This said, your MapComplete theme looks interesting for all types of campsites including backcounty ones. Probably I should build one.

Regards

Sven

As I already wrote using capacity for campsites is a bad idea because the key is ambiguous.

Is this repo the right place to open an issue? Will you do so?

Openstreetmap ist in Erster Linie ein Datenprojekt, kein Onlinedienst.

Was Du suchst kann man trotzdem super mit OSM-Daten machen. Ich empfehle hierzu die Software Brouter: http://brouter.de/brouter-web/

Looking at taginfo I found out, that capacity:persons is an already established tag. So we should just use this one. I accordingly changed the blog-entry.

@Robhubi: Ich denke Ihr hättet diese Meinungsverschiedenheit in einer Changeset-Diskussion wo das IMO auch hingehört ausräumen können. Wenn der ausgeschilderte Wegverlauf derart vom offiziellen Track abweicht ist das eigentlich kein Problem von OSM.

IMO wäre eine gute Vorgehensweise erst mal die Route anhand des GPX-Tracks zu erfassen und dann bei Gelegenheit mit der ground truth abzugleichen.

@HiddeWie: It is good practise to mention such an explicit permission in changeset comments.

Wie meine Vorredner schon gesagt haben eine reine Darstellungsfrage. Schau mal in der Opentopomap, da ist er drin.

Moin,

wir haben einen ähnlichen Fall hier, den “Badischen Weinradweg”

relation/10922043

Nach Anfrage wurde es uns explizit genehmigt den verfügbaren GPS-Track zur Eintragung in OSM zu verwenden.

Tourismusverbände haben damit meiner Erfahrung nach selten ein Problem also einfach anfragen. Vor Ort nach Schildern zu kartografieren bleibt natürlich die Premium-Methode. Aber auch beim Weinradweg sind diese AFAIK noch nicht vollständig.

Sven

“maxtents” has 1189 entries. So far from irrelevant.

From taginfo: We have 112923 campsites. 4948 of them have a capacity tag which is about 4,4% oft sites. I wonder how many of them are about pitches not sites.

We are talking about campsites only here. “capacity” does make sense in other contexts (e.g. parking), but is misleading in case of campsites. I like the idea of having three max-tags.

Maybe I should start a thread about this issue on the tagging mailinglist.

Not a good idea because on backcountry sites as well as group-only campsites the Number of people is quite important because it is often limited.

However on stationary camping/caravaning sites nobody usually cares about the number of people at all. However I seriously doubt that defining capacity either way depending on the type of campsite is a good idea.

This said the Number of pitches is often not as clearly defined also. Pitches might be divided into the ones for permanent residents and the ones for holiday campers and people using tents will often be directed to a meadow use for an undefined number of tents.

Sven