[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hiking_checkpoint

fly lowflight66 at googlemail.com
Fri Jul 15 15:08:45 BST 2011


Am 15.07.2011 15:18, schrieb Craig Wallace:
> 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.

In general I agree, but are checkpoints only used for hiking routes ?

> 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.

+1

Just connect it with the relation to the routes. Role could be
checkpoint for appropriate route=* relations.

I would use the description to give more information about the place
where the checkpoint is located in the pub, church ...

> 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'.

+1

Cheers fly



More information about the Tagging mailing list