[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hiking_checkpoint

Craig Wallace craigw84 at fastmail.fm
Fri Jul 15 14:18:34 BST 2011


On 15/07/2011 13:01, Zsolt Bertalan wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This proposal is to replace the old Stamping Point proposal.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hiking_checkpoint
>
> I'm not sure if the wording of the checkpoint type section is correct.
> Do you now about other validation methods? Also the tourism_movement tag
> now overlaps with the description tag. Please discuss!

Some comments:
Having two ways of tagging the same thing (tourism=hiking_checkpoint or 
hiking_checkpoint=yes) is confusing, and makes things more difficult for 
editors or renderers etc. Better just to agree on a single tag.
I would suggest something like hiking=checkpoint, then it can be used on 
a node on its own or on an amenity or tourism=attraction etc.

For tourism_movement, I think you mean the name of the hiking route?
In which case I would suggest tagging it as route:name or similar. So 
there's no need to also have that in the description tag. Otherwise its 
confusing as to whether that is the description of the route, or a 
description of the individual checkpoint.
You could also add the checkpoint to the route relation. Then things 
like the route website can be tagged on the relation, not individual 
checkpoints.

For checkpoint type, I would suggest tagging it as 'checkpoint:type'. 
The colon seems to be the standard separator for types of things. Also, 
it should be 'electronic', not 'electric'.


Craig



More information about the Tagging mailing list