<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 04.01.2019 um 18:18 schrieb Peter
Elderson:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+sYMXgvNeNoOoBMMPnV0j-kZTpZtTA554MDHRJ6+Nq=Ow@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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="mw-content-ltr"
style="background:#EEF;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><bdi
style="white-space:nowrap"><a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway"
title="Key:highway">highway</a></bdi>=<a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath"
title="Tag:highway=path"><bdi>path</bdi></a></tt>) and should
be tagged primarily as <tt dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"
style="background:#EEF;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><bdi
style="white-space:nowrap"><a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway"
title="Key:highway">highway</a></bdi>=<a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dtrailhead&action=edit&redlink=1"
class="new" title="Tag:highway=trailhead (page does not
exist)"><bdi>trailhead</bdi></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>
</body>
</html>