[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hiking_checkpoint

[Craig Wallace]

On 15/07/2011 18:50, Zsolt Bertalan wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM, fly <lowflight66 at googlemail.com
> <mailto:lowflight66 at googlemail.com>> wrote:
>
>     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 ?
>
>
> No, I see it as a tourism feature. I don't want to introduce a new
> namespace. The other tag (hiking_checkpoint=yes) is only needed in the
> rare case if we already have a tourism tag.

Its not really a new namespace, just a different key. And 
hiking_checkpoint=yes is a new key anyway. Though maybe it would fit 
better in another key which would be less likely to clash with other 
tags, I'm not sure?

Maybe highway=hiking_checkpoint? Or you could just tag them all as 
hiking_checkpoint=yes.


>      > 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
>
>
> No, tourism movement is not the same thing as a hiking route. Mostly
> they have their own hikig route, but there are also smaller, regional
> movements that use several different hiking routes. So no relations,
> that would be really confusing. I agree, description is confusing. It's
> the same as the movement but I used it for different languages. I think
> tourism_movement:en is not valid or useful. Maybe I should emphasise
> that it is used for the name of the movement in different language?.

I'm not sure what you mean by "tourism movement". I don't think this 
phrase is used in this context in English. Can you link to a relevant 
Wikipedia article?

Is it more like a network of several different routes? If so, I would 
suggest a tag of something like network:name. Or is it the organisation 
that runs/maintains it, if so you can tag it as operator.

The individual checkpoints should usually be part of a route relation 
anyway, so you can tag the details for network etc on that.

Craig