Hi Michael,

These places are real wild camping places with no facilities nor a designation by any (government) official as it being a camp site. You should see this from the perspective that in the (high) mountains it is often difficult to find a sort of flat space nearby water to pitch your tent for the night, or just not to roll off your mattress.

So from an OSM observability perspective, what is observable is a flat area that stands out in between all of the slopes and is interpreted as 'a great place to pitch a tent' and is therefore valuable to map. At least that's my thoughts.

Although I don't mind too much about the legal aspects, within Switzerland this is actually allowed, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedermannsrecht#Schweiz

Reading about camp_site= legal aspects I think "In jurisdictions that allow camping by default: the absence of a sign or other indication may be enough to satisfy the mapper that the site is legal." applies. So yes camp_site_basic may apply to these three and a the few others with camp_type=wildcamping in the alps.

Cheers,
dikkeknodel

These changes have been reverted in changeset/59013331. The wild camp sites have been enriched with additional information following a discussion in changeset/51210935 and input from the original contributor.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

The revert:
changeset/59012299
The enrichment:
changeset/59012400

Done: changeset/58978320

Hallo nurdafur,
Zufälligerweise hab ich gefunden das zwei deiner Campingplätze wieder gelöscht sind in changeset/51210935.
Weil es wertvoll für Bergsteiger ist diese Wildzeltplätze zu behalten mochte ich die wieder zurücksetzen. Ich mochte sie aber auch bereichern mit camp_type=wildcamp und eine Beschreibung, wie diese: node/3759545415
Weist du noch wie gross die Plätze sind?
Liebe Grüsse,
dikkeknodel

Hi mboeringa,
I think your concerns are valid, although the same user also tagged drinking water sources in the immediate surrounding area.
The wild_camping tagging is introduced on the Tag:tourism=camp_site wiki page at 19-04-2017, so it is fairly new. I did not know it until I found similar camp_sites in another changeset that were actually having 4 stars assigned :-S:
changeset/34252985
By commenting that changeset I reached out to the user actually visiting the area and we worked together to enrich the map.
Off course we are not tagging for the renderer, which naturally lags in implemented new tagging. This is also where the personal responsibility of the user of the data comes in. Having a map does not take away personal responsibilities of people going into the mountains.
Hence I still doubt the action you took. A comment in the changeset introducing these camp sites would have quickly resolved these issues. It would have actually enriched the data, while now you more or less bluntly removed it.
By coincidence I've met user nurdarfur in person, this user mainly maps while on the go (which is also described in his OSM profile for anybody to read) and which is hinted to because Vespucci is mainly used. So I'm 99% sure this was personally surveyed before entered (this is also mentioned as source in the changeset). Additionally, replies from nurdafur are typically very quick, but if you don't try to send a comment, you won't get a reply either.
As an avid mountain hiker and wild camper, I am very welcoming to information about wild camping sites, hence the persistence :-).
So my main point is that it was premature to just remove these sites from the armchair without discussion with the mapper introducing the POIs or survey on location.
I will contact nurdafur and then revert and enrich the data.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Please disregard the source, I forgot to update the text.
These were interpretations of tourism=attractions which were mistakenly added by user Elvis Mehic.

I meant this changeset
changeset/42341070

Hi mboeringa,
I agree that it should be marked that these are wild camping spots. However, in the mountains it can be pretty helpful if wild camping sites are marked, since flat surfaces may be scarce. Removing them seems a bit hasty in my opinion.
camp_type=wildcamp and a description tag with the amount of tents that fit at the location would for example improve the detail in my opinion.
Why would you just plainly remove these sites instead of start a discussion first? The changeset in which these sites were introduced (changeset/42344084) does not include any comments asking for these details. You could have requested user nurdafur for these details and enrich the map instead of depriving it of this information completely.
I suggest we do this and put them back when the details are available. What are your thoughts?
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Hi Simon,
Thanks for getting back this quickly. There is a 2m high statue with a plaque remembering the 1970-74 working years to finish the Passstrasse. It doesn't exactly say it's at Passhöhe, but it's pretty obvious when you're there. I move the pass node to this place, trying to maintain the OSM history.

Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Hi Simon,
This was a while ago, so you may not remember. You removed the node for Pragelpass next to the Pragelpass-Denkmal (node/2425350426) and left the Pass node close to the restaurant (node/1533696169). I was there this weekend, and think it should actually be the other way around. I checked with both a barometric elevation measurement and and inclination measurement on my compass, the elevation at the position of the current node for Pragelpass is about 5 m below the elevation of the road next to the Denkmal.
Therefor I think the node should be moved. Since you state Bing as a source in this changeset I suppose you did not do the measurements on location.

Do you agree with the with the change?

Cheers,
dikkeknodel

And the islet westward:
changeset/58779543

Hi Jenseblume,
I'm writing about your action on way/151305499 in this changeset. You've set it to scree, while it is actually shingle.
Although both surface types are similar in that it's both loose rocks, they are actually different. Scree is along the steep face of a mountain, where rocks that come loose from the mountain collect. Shingle is loose rocks, or pebbles that are transported by water.
To make it more complex, at some places there may be an arbitrary transition point from scree to shingle when a river is close to a scree field. That is not the case here however.
I've already made the change in changeset/58779449.
Keep up the happy mapping.
Cheers, dikkeknodel

Hallo Pudu,
Veilleicht hast du auch zu viele Brücke 'gebaut' :-). Kannst du dir diese mal anschauen:
way/196957200
Ich bin dort selbst (noch) nicht gewesen, aber auf die Satelitenbilden seht es aus ob da keine Brücke ist.
Liebe Grüsse, dikkeknodel

Agreement was reached via PM, changes have been implemented in changeset/58687442

Hi thliborius,
Thanks for getting back this quickly. I understand the difficulty, and don't really have a solution either. I am not really familiar with what is relevant to map at high altitude. Although IMHO a high point in between two low points would be a peak and a low point in between two high point would be a saddle, without the relevance of having a name. So when you say 'the highest point in the environment' then I would be inclined to call it a peak. It is however arbitrary which prominence (and how to calculate) is needed to asign these terms.
Since I am not the high altitude specialist, I will leave it up to you.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Hallo Geonick,
Ich verstehe die Aufteilung von Museum und Gebaude. Sollte aber nicht auch die Öffnungszeiten, Website, uzw. zür Museum node verlegt werden?
Liebe Grüsse,
dikkeknodel

Hi Sammelmuetze,
I noticed that you only did minor changes, but very far apart (Brno and south of France). In this way your changeset bounding box (the orange box) spans multiple countries. This means that many people involved in quality control within the whole box are attended to your changeset, while this is not relevant.

Would you please be so kind to make your next changesets (geographically) smaller?

Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Lieber BAK365,
dan mach ich es so, die Änderung ist durchgeführt.
changeset/58669459
Liebe Grüsse,
dikkeknodel

Hi thliborius,
You have added a locality P.2860, this name does not sound like a typical name in use. Considering the altitude in the direct environment, could this actually be a peak without name?
If yes, then please change to natural=peak combined with ele=2860.
Keep up the high altitude mapping, I don't dare to go there yet.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel