[Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Wed Jan 2 19:41:41 UTC 2019


I agree. That is not suggested.

Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 19:05 schreef Jo <winfixit at gmail.com>:

> Please don't add public transport stops to hiking route relations. That
> would be really confusing.
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:39 PM Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Peter: " Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the
>> way of more complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common
>> element which supports all the other options. "
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 PM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sometimes it would, sometimes it would not. If the node actually
>>> represents the start of the trail, it is already in the relation because it
>>> is part of the way that belongs to the route. In the situation that a
>>> trailhead node represents a named cluster of helpful facilities/amenities
>>> in the vicinity of several trails or networks, you wouldn't want to add it
>>> to all the relations, because a. it's not actually part of the routes and
>>> b. maintenance of all the routes would be quite error-prone and not really
>>> intuitive.
>>>
>>> A site relation has been suggested for the more complex trailheads. You
>>> would include the node there, the parking(s), the information booth or
>>> guide stands, maybe PT-stops, possibly the route relations you can access
>>> from the site...
>>>
>>> Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way of
>>> more complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element which
>>> supports all the other options.
>>>
>>> Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 12:04 schreef Tobias Wrede <list at tobias-wrede.de>:
>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it make sense to add the trail head (node) to a route relation
>>>> with role=trail_head?
>>>>
>>>> Am 01.01.2019 um 12:54 schrieb Peter Elderson:
>>>> > At this point, I settle for just requiring that it's a named location
>>>> > visibly designated as access point for one ore more recreational
>>>> routes.
>>>> >
>>>> > So just a node tagged highway=trailhead and name=<Name of the
>>>> trailhead>.
>>>> >
>>>> > Which node? Well, if it's just the start with a name on a guidepost,
>>>> > use the guidepost node. If it's an information board with the name,
>>>> > use that. If there is a flagpole or a stele or say a statue of the
>>>> > pioneer who walked it first, use that. If there is none of that, use
>>>> > the location which presents itself naturally as a starrting point
>>>> when
>>>> > you get there. If there is no such location, then it's not a
>>>> trailhead!
>>>> >
>>>> > Anything else: optional, map and tag as seems appropriate.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Tagging mailing list
>>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Swarthout
>> Homer, Alaska
>> Chiang Mai, Thailand
>> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190102/55f6ba2e/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list