[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mountaineer's mailbox
kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com
Tue Sep 6 19:59:11 UTC 2016
And once again the confusion begins...
There are indeed hiker registers (and, for that matter, other guestbooks)
at many locations other than summits. Sometimes they're optional "I was
here" guestbooks. Sometimes they're "please register, because our funding
depends on showing that we are supporting a large number of visitors."
Sometimes they're even carbon-paper forms "you must register, and carry
proof that you did, so that search and rescue workers will know who's in
there." And all of these tend to get conflated with geocaches, and
letterboxes, and $LC_DEITY alone knows what else. I've seen this discussion
rise and fall at least once before, without any consensus being reached
because different people imagined tagging a different set of objects.
It's not clear for me that a letterbox for depositing your registration
card (or housing the guestbook) like
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/16998968697/ is the same sort of thing
as a summit register like https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14713754302 .
On the other hand, it's not clear that they aren't the same sort of thing:
a place that you're expected to write your name to indicate your presence.
The last time this discussion was raised, it even veered off into guest
books in churches and museums, which summit:register surely would not
cover. I don't think we'll make progress unless we make it clear what the
intended scope is.
For what it's worth, I have an interest in adding and tagging the stations
where hiker registration is either mandatory or else strongly recommended.
Most of the ones in my part of the world are boxes, often at trailhead
kiosks, containing books like
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14041151285/. But that is quite
possibly a different thing from a summit register and should perhaps be a
different proposal. Another type of trail register that's common around
here is a register at a lean-to (a three-sided structure meant for campers
to sleep in, like https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14279291625/). That's
one that I've not tried to tag explicitly, since it would be somewhat
surprising to find a lean-to without a register book. BUT NEITHER OF THESE
IS A SUMMIT REGISTER, and we need to make it clear just how much of the
ocean we're trying to boil.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Anders Fougner <anders.fougner at gmail.com>
> Den 06.09.2016 20.56, skrev ksg:
>> Am 06.09.2016 um 20:38 schrieb Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com>:
>>> OK, that sounds good as well. Maybe still have some sort of tagging for
>>> the type so that we can show a letterbox as Mr Díaz de Argandoña requests?
>> Perfect, may be like "summit:register:letterbox=yes“?
>> (As I said earlier, I'm unlikely to tag such a beast, because the clubs
>>> where I climb request that climbers not share coordinates of the registers
>>> or GPS tracks of the routes on the peaks without established trails.)
>> In the Alps summit registers in terms of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>> Summit_register are not uncommon even on „insignificant“ peaks.
>> These are also common on all sorts of peaks in my country (Norway). From
> small hills in the forest (usually near the cities) to the steepest peaks
> you would have to be a rock climber to reach.
> Sometimes it's not even on a peak or a hill, just in a trail crossing or
> something like that. The term "summit register" doesn't really fit for
> those, but otherwise they look the same and are there for approximately the
> same reasons, I believe...
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging