<div dir="ltr">I can see your argument. <div><br></div><div>First question: what's the harm in combining highway=trailhead and tourism=information? Note: I'm not asking this defensively or to advocate it, just want to understand where the problem lies.<div><br></div><div>Second: Separating these two keys is no problem in the Dutch situation. We chose to use the exact location of the landmark/stele. Earlier mappers had chosen to use the information board with a name-tag added. Some had used a parking area or a node in the parking area with a name. Some thought the pancake restaurant was the most important place and used that as a location. Some used the rcn or rwn node nearby, ande some the starting node of one of the routes. I've seen it all. </div></div><div><br></div><div>Now, in the Dutch situation, the information board is almost always within a few meters of the landmark/stele and the waymarks/guideposts directing the users to the routes. That makes those elements fit within one node. There is a kind of logic in combining the tags within one one. </div><div>In other situations/countries, it would be logical to use another combination or not combine it at all. </div><div><br></div><div>Unless there is an actual real problem, I see no reason to prescribe anything here at this point. Let the mapper map as seems most fitting for that situation/setup. If there is a real problem with the current Dutch tagging, something actually going wrong because of it, I will repair it, as long as we keep the a usable dataset. </div><div><br></div><div>I would like to first complete step one: finalize and document basic tagging to provide consistent basic mapping and consistent data for -searching (by name), -selecting (by tag), -listing (=filter by tag into a table), -rendering trailheads. </div><div><br></div><div>Search by name works, (osm-carto shows that): check.</div><div><br></div><div>Select by tag works (overpass shows that): check</div><div><br></div><div>Listing works in principle (=overpass select): small check, because there is currently no example. Well, I can select and list in JOSM, I think that's an example but not for the consumers.</div><div><br></div><div>rendering: no check. It can easily be done of course, it's just a POI, but... oh well. Later. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 12:23 schreef Tobias Wrede <<a href="mailto:list@tobias-wrede.de">list@tobias-wrede.de</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="gmail-m_-8103420428672071688moz-cite-prefix">Am 04.01.2019 um 18:18 schrieb Peter
Elderson:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Let's agree to agree!</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">Op vr 4 jan. 2019 om 16:52 schreef Kevin Kenny
<<a href="mailto:kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com" target="_blank">kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On
Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Peter Elderson <<a href="mailto:pelderson@gmail.com" target="_blank">pelderson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I'm trying to go for the minimal tagging that supports
the most of the use cases. Which is a node tagged
highway=trailhead. It's up to mappers / communities if and how
they will apply and embed that according to local, regional or
country-specific needs or definitions. Or maybe decide it's
not useful in that situation at all.<br>
<br>
If the definition is "a designated or customary place where a
trip on<br>
a trail begins or ends," I'm entirely on board. <br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm perfectly fine with this. Now an open question is still where
to place this tag and how to combine it. The stalled hw=trailhead
proposal specifically suggests to place a trailhead node alone or
on a piece of highway: "A trailhead should be mapped as a node or
a node that is part of a trail segment (i.e.,<tt dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_-8103420428672071688mw-content-ltr" style="background:rgb(238,238,255);font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><u></u><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway" title="Key:highway" target="_blank">highway</a><u></u>=<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath" title="Tag:highway=path" target="_blank"><u></u>path<u></u></a></tt>) and should
be tagged primarily as <tt dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_-8103420428672071688mw-content-ltr" style="background:rgb(238,238,255);font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><u></u><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway" title="Key:highway" target="_blank">highway</a><u></u>=<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dtrailhead&action=edit&redlink=1" class="gmail-m_-8103420428672071688new" title="Tag:highway=trailhead (page does not
exist)" target="_blank"><u></u>trailhead<u></u></a></tt>." At least I would
rephrase that to something along "... or a node that is part of
the trail segment or a highway leading to its trail(s)."</p>
<p>More problematic is the question of combination. I'm pretty much
opposed to giving this object two top level keys:
highway=trailhead and tourism=information. I think the thought of
the old proposal was to mark the point on a trail where to access
it, hence hw=. Peter was more going in the direction of marking
the point where we find information on how to access the trail
(name, information board, sign, stele, ...), hence
tourism=information + information=.</p>
<p>I would still try to separate the elements. We leave it with
hw=trailhead + possibly a name + possibly including it in the
route relation for the actual access point. Additionally, we map
the amenities: information board, parking, toilets, picknick site
etc. I'd welcome introducing something like tourism=information +
information=trailhead or tourism=information + information=board +
board_type=trailhead. Since a trailhead could be marked by other
objects than a board the former might be more universal.<br>
</p>
<p>For the dutch case that would mean removing the hw=trailhead from
all the points and changing the tourism=... to something new we
agree on.<br>
</p>
<p>Tobias<br>
</p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">Vr gr Peter Elderson</div>