[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hiking_checkpoint

Zsolt Bertalan herrbert74 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 15 22:52:18 BST 2011


I couldn't find anything better than tourism movement. I realise that
although in english it is frequently used, it has a more general meaning,
like propagation of countryside tourism, hiking, etc. I found "hiker's
movement", but also only on Hungary related pages. Is this any better? I
think you would think of a moving hiker hearing that.
But tourism movements (literal translation) do exist in Hungary. Any
organisation or association can start a tourism movement (TM). A TM usually
has a brochure and checkpoints for the validation of completion. Most TMs
have a designated route, but there are also TMs that require visiting all
checkpoints in any order from any direction. Like all the castles and
springs of a mountain range. So a TM is not an organisation, not a route and
not a network of routes. If you can't think of any better then we should
stick with TM.

I don't want checkpoints to be part of a relation. I see a hiking route as a
series of consecutive tracks and paths. Checkpoints are usually on a short
detour on the wayside, or in a nearby building or in the nearest train
station. They are not exactly on the route.

Zsolt
Herrbert74

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Craig Wallace <craigw84 at fastmail.fm> wrote:

> 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@**googlemail.com <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<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
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20110715/149209fa/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list