I apologize for the delay responding but I wanted to verify some info first.  While some of the documentation about tourism-camp_site vs tourism=camp_pitch is not as clear as it could be, and thus leaves the interpretation somewhat ambiguous, I think technically you are correct.

Howerver, tourism=camp_pitch, while technically the appropriate tag, doesn't prove to be the most effective tag and here is why I say that:

--OSM doesn’t render tourism=camp_pitch when mapped as a stand-alone point
--OSM doesn’t render tourism=camp_pitch when mapped as an area
--OSM will flag tourism=camp_pitch with an error if it is not a stand-alone point (meaning it cannot be connected to the drive way of a camp site without throwing and error--and again OSM won't render it any way.
--Most 3rd-party systems don't render tourism=camp_pitch either

(I tested this but feel free to let me know if I made errors)

Ultimately a map should be useful. Showing the individual camp sites and site numbers within a campground is helpful.  tourism=camp_pitch is supposed to be the appropriate tag for this; howerver it is tourism=camp_site and tourism=caravan_site that are proving to be more effective tags for campsite mapping.

Let me know your thoughts.  Ultimately I don't know everything, but I've found this to be a more effective mapping strategy.  But I'm happy to work together if a better solution exists.
