<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/16/2019 2:45 PM, Peter Elderson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+sDx1om3G2KhVEmB7NN_wAjDs_8cWJjGeE2FfEPW_12=w@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">I copied the page from the highway=bus_stop page,
because the thing resembles a bus stop.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This off the road bit can go. The idea, as discussed
earlier, is not to include the node in the route or routes.
The node allows people to hop on one or more routes, but is
not part of these routes. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Local mappers / communities can discuss where to put the
node. For Nederland, current tagging is to put the node
exactly where the landmark pole or stele is. Mappers /
communities may decide to use the location of an infoboard or
banner, or a parking place or rest facility nearby the trail.<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Worldwide at this moment, I see no basis for recommended
further tagging, just the one basic node. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Vr gr Peter Elderson</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Thanks -- I can certainly imagine a mapper contemplating drawing
an area for a more elaborate trailhead, to include parking or
toilets for example, but I'm perfectly happy with 1) Keep it
simple and just use a node, and 2) Put that node where it makes
the most sense in local context.</p>
<p>Jason<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>