[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Sun Apr 19 23:20:35 UTC 2015


On 17/04/2015 8:08 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 16.04.2015 06:25, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>> But I'd be willing to bet that most trails are not part of a network of
>> other trails or a route but are stand-alone. The trails I once hiked in the
>> Adirondack Mountains in New York State all have names and trailheads but,
>> with a couple of exceptions, are not part of any route. I think the mixed
>> approach is best. If a given trail is part of  a larger system of trails, or
>> the area where it begins has related amenities, then the relation idea makes
>> sense. Otherwise, keeping it simple with a named trailhead node where the
>> transition from highway to footway takes place will suffice.
> Without a relation, how can applications determine which trail the trailhead
> belongs to? Is it all about rendering the trailhead icon?
>

Surely the tailhead will be at least in close proximity to the trail 
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do applications need to determine this? I'd think the human end user 
will easly see the 'relationship'.

Where I to map a tail head .. it would be a single node ON the trail it 
self. As I see little point in mapping a trailhead I'll probably not map 
them .. in my local area they have no name, no amenities other than that 
provided by the other mapped features around them. Oh .. and the local 
trails were put in by a bulldozer to make fire trails thus they were 
highway=track, some have deteriorated to highway=path. Most of them link 
up to many other trails .. one of them is a formal trail some 250 km 
long (and yes that would have many 'trailheads').



More information about the Tagging mailing list