Unfortunately the current tagging of capacity on campsites is ambiguous at best. While on backcountry and scout sites capacity is often seen a the maximum number of persons allowed, on tourist sites mappers often tend to tag the number of pitches available for tents or caravans using this tag.
Thus following a recent discussion on the tagging mailinglist I changed this to be more consistent and similar to existing tags (caravans, tents).
I also changed the bugs view on https://opencampingmap.org/ to warn about the now obsoleted tags capacity and maxtents.
Now mappers should use the following tags instead:
capacity:persons for the maximum number of persons allowed to stay at a site if limited.
capacity:tents for the number of tent pitches available or maximum number of tents allowed.
capacity:caravans for the number of caravan pitches available or maximum number of caravans allowed.
I already changed this in the Wiki for German and English Language.
Please help me changing this in the Wiki for other languages as well.
I also need some help for fixing the localization of https://opencampingmap.org/ for French, Spanish an Russian language. Please contact me if you are a native speaker and can help me with a couple of sentences. Or just send a pull-request for the sourcecode at https://github.com/giggls/opencampsitemap
Comment from giggls on 30 December 2020 at 12:25
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.
Comment from jonsger on 9 January 2021 at 14:38
Danke für das Engagement in diesem Bereich! Ich hab mein persönliches Tagging schon daran angepasst :)
Eine Baustelle sind noch die Tagging Voreinstellung, die u.a. von ID verwendet werden:
Da wird aktuell noch capacity verwendet, müsste man dann in die drei Subtypen spliten. Dann aber von Fields nach moreFields verschieben, sonst wirds zu unübersichtlich…
Comment from giggls on 9 January 2021 at 14:47
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?
Comment from jonsger on 9 January 2021 at 14:53
I guess. So I will create a PR there…