streetcomplete
Camping ground cabins
Currently the "Who may camp here?" quest only asks for tents and motor homes. However many camping grounds also rent out small cabins. This is recorded with the cabins tag. Currently around 4k camp grounds are tagged with cabins=yes and 400 with cabins=no.
We could eather:
- Ask about cabins in the existing "Who may camp here?" quest
- Add a new yes/no quest only for cabins
Finding out if a camping ground offers these cabins is in my experience, often easier than finding out if they allow tents.
See also https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/pull/4213#discussion_r933961485 for other possibilities that were not implemented originally (some of higher usability)...
That being said, I'm not a particularly big fan of cabins=* as a property tag, as those are IMHO fundamentally different principle from camping (which is IMHO about bringing your own accommodation with you - regardless if that is RV/caravan or tent).
Things like glamping pre-setup tents, cabins, hostel etc. are IMHO better tagged separately as tourism=chalet|guest_house|hostel|whatever etc. via Places Overlay, even when in adjacent space to actual camp pitches and operated by same operator...
(Because if you're going with a tent/RV you won't be looking for cabins in camp site, and if you're going without tent/RV and you need accommodation, you won't really be looking for "camp sites".)
But then, just my opinion. If others feel there is value, I have no problems with it being added...
Hmm, on the other side, I find it is very common for camping sites to offer rentable cabins/chalets (and "barrels") alongside the classical options. Is there any discussion on osm.org about whether these should be tagged?
That being said, I'm not a particularly big fan of
cabins=*as a property tag, as those are IMHO fundamentally different principle from camping (which is IMHO about bringing your own accommodation with you - regardless if that is RV/caravan or tent).
Tbh, I personally don't think that RVs/caravans should count as camping ether, which is about being outdoor / in nature for me, but I see that many people seem to disagree.
Things like glamping pre-setup tents, cabins, hostel etc. are IMHO better tagged separately as
tourism=chalet|guest_house|hostel|whateveretc. via Places Overlay, even when in adjacent space to actual camp pitches and operated by same operator...
I am not sure any of these suggested tags actually reflects cabins that well though. In my experience, such cabins rarely have any amenities, maybe power and some simple heating, but toilets, showers and kitchens are commonly shared and in a separate building.
From all of the suggested tags I would expect such amenities to atlest be in the same building, Chalet also already mentions in the wiki: "...with self-contained cooking and bathroom facilities.".
Also a lot of such glamping / cabin places also allow the usage of regular tents (often easy since they already have lots of space), so glamping areas will often be camping areas, and camping areas will also often have cabins. Thus by always having these as separate we would create a lot of data duplication, since they would probably have the same address, opening hours, name, webpage, etc.
(Because if you're going with a tent/RV you won't be looking for cabins in camp site, and if you're going without tent/RV and you need accommodation, you won't really be looking for "camp sites".)
When I am camping, I often find it good to know if there is a close and cheap way I can get inside for a night if a thunderstorm comes up. A cabin provides that safety. I can also imagine a user case like "Hey our RV only fits 3, but don't worry,we can get a cabin for the night where your brother join us".
I think the quest could/should be expanded to include asking for cabins.
Maybe the wording needs to be changed. "Who may camp here?" .... the only answer that would fit the question would be "People without any gear - there are cabins". Which is awkward. So, open to ideas.
Also, this change would likely require to change the UI of this quest from a radio-button-based quest to a TBD checkbox-based quest. Something that doesn't exist (yet) because usually we want to have ⚛️ atomic quests. I.e. ask separately.
Is there a good reason to break with this pattern here? Why, anyway, is the current camper quest not two quests? Was there a specific reason for this, @mnalis ?
Also, this change would likely require to change the UI of this quest from a radio-button-based quest to a TBD checkbox-based quest. Something that doesn't exist (yet) because usually we want to have ⚛️ atomic quests. I.e. ask separately.
Could we not use something similar to the bike tool equipment quest? As in a grid of images where multiple ones can be selected
Also, this change would likely require to change the UI of this quest from a radio-button-based quest to a TBD checkbox-based quest. Something that doesn't exist (yet) because usually we want to have ⚛️ atomic quests. I.e. ask separately.
For the sake of another few quests, personally I'd be in favour of splitting these out as I've always found it hard to know whether RVs are permitted (if I'm there in a tent), I guess others might have the reverse issue, but probably most RV sites will likely allow and have tents onsite already. Smaller places may not turn away RVs, but there might not be any there when you stay/walk past.
Cabins would probably actually be the easiest to answer because as long as they're visible (not hidden in some secluded woods or whatever), they are present all the time!
Is there a good reason to break with this pattern here? Why, anyway, is the current camper quest not two quests? Was there a specific reason for this, @mnalis ?
Mostly only the simplicity / keeping the number of quests down... (e.g. like we have single quest for "What kind of seating does this place have" instead of having two quests "Can you sit inside here?" + "Can you sit outside here?")
As in a grid of images where multiple ones can be selected
Sure, it would look nicer (if appropriate picture could be chosen). Originally, for just 2 answers (as in original quest), I find simple text answers easier and clearer then image multiselect but with 3+, there is no longer the case of course, as number of answers skyrockets). But see below:
For the sake of another few quests, personally I'd be in favour of splitting these out as I've always found it hard to know whether RVs are permitted (if I'm there in a tent),
Yeah, it makes sense to me. Didn't have such problems myself yet, but I can see it having as separate quests might be beneficial as you note @peternewman [^1]. Like e.g. I would prefer those seating quest above to be split, as I can easily see if they have outside seating or not, and for checking indoor seating I would often actually have to enter the place to check, and that is much more complex. (and other people might have opposite problem of not being able to answer in winter whether there is outside seating as that is generally only available in summer over here)
[^1]: of course, with such splitting, then there is another quest to select/deselect when creating profiles which creates friction there... not a big issue in itself, but if globally it results in 200 quests instead of 100 quests, it becomes more of a problem. And having to answer two quests is more clicks then one - but then again, it beings double score, so not a total loss 😃
Maybe the wording needs to be changed. "Who may camp here?" .... the only answer that would fit the question would be "People without any gear - there are cabins". Which is awkward. So, open to ideas.
How about "What form of camping is allowed here?"
- Tents
- Campervans
- Rentable cabins etc...
How about "What form of camping is allowed here?"
I'm not a native speaker, but can “rentable cabins” be permitted or not permitted? Isn't it more about the existence of possibilities? Then, shouldn't the wording be about what use is facilitated / made possible?
Online camping platforms usually refer to "types of vacation" or "types of accommodation". This could be adapted to ask: What types of vacation are possible here? or What types of accommodation are possible here?
Yeah, it should be better formulated...
Then, shouldn't the wording be about what use is facilitated / made possible?
Good point, yes...
What types of vacation are possible here? or What types of accommodation are possible here?
former does not sound good there ("type of vacation" I'd associate with my employer "paid" or "unpaid" vacation or something like that, not with available accommodation, and the latter is better but still seems much less understandable then existing one).
Perhaps "How you may camp here?":
- in own tent
- in own motorhome/RV
- in rentable cabin
would be clearer? As it seems to me to make sense logically, and is makes it clearer which option requires you to bring your own accommodation, and which does not; and also allows for possible future extensions like e.g. "in rentable tent" (i.e. "glamping").
But as mentioned above, splitting that quest to 3 separate quests might be preferred (due to being clearer, and making it easier for the user, so they don't need to walk all camp or ask at the reception to find out all the details but can answer only things that are trivial to them to answer)
so they don't need to walk all camp or ask at the reception to find out all the details but can answer only things that are trivial to them to answer)
In my experience this is often rather trivial, since you can consult price lists or see signs pointing out places designated for tents or cabins.
But as mentioned above, splitting that quest to 3 separate quests might be preferred (due to being clearer, and making it easier for the user, so they don't need to walk all camp or ask at the reception to find out all the details but can answer only things that are trivial to them to answer)
In my region all camping ground allow tents, thus a quest only asking for tents would be really spammy.
Another thing to consider: This quest / quests could also be used for tourism=caravan_site. These can also be tagged with tent=* and cabin=*. However asking for caravans seems redundant^