[Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Wed Jan 2 19:57:04 UTC 2019


Copying from an earlier response: Designated starting point for multiple
routes into a nature area.  There is a designed marking pole or stele,
information boards, seats or benches, free parking space nearby. This one
is in a small village:
https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.4336993,6.834158,3a,75y,191.07h,84.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sby0P5NTeyqR3fyrgDNqCOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl

Here is another one, with emphasis on Parking. On the left behind the
parking is the actual access point to the trails.
https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.6284198,5.0889629,3a,76.4y,32.53h,96.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy3HdYWJ2zZ1rw1ozqJyrXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl

The operators are governmental bodies. They publish the lists on recreation
websites. Each province has its own list. VVV of course lists/presents them
as well.

These points are designed for trail access.

Some other examples have been mailed by others, I thought?



Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 19:44 schreef Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com>:

> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 AM 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.
>
> At the risk of repeating myself:
>
> I think I'd need more concrete examples before I'd support such a
> proposal. I think that we have people in this conversation with
> different cultural expectations of what a 'trailhead' is. My
> northeastern-US definition is, "anywhere that you get on and off a
> trail", so usually there's parking, and perhaps a notice board or a
> register book to sign, but I don't expect many more amenities than
> that, and sometimes not even those. It may happen that a trailhead is
> in a developed facility in a park (such as a ranger station,
> recreation ground, campground or visitors' center), or even in a
> populated place, but in that case I think of the amenities as
> associated with the other facility and not with the trailhead.
> (Except, of course, for the trail-specific ones such as notice boards,
> signposts and registers!)
>
> If what's under consideration is 'a NAMED place to get on and off a
> trail,' then I know of only a handful of trailheads anywhere me that
> have names other than the names of geographic features that they're
> near. (The "Route 23 trailhead" or the "Roaring Brook trailhead" are
> typical - they are simply informal descriptions, not real names.)
> There are a handful of exceptions, like 'Sled Harbor' (near 42.5237 N
> 74.5629 W) or 'Elk Pen'
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1305445030) but they are actually
> described well by place=locality, since they name the place, not the
> trailhead. Historically, Elk Pen was where rail tycoon E.H. Harriman
> kept the elk for his private hunting preserve, and Sled Harbor was
> where loggers stored their sledges in the summer months. 'Named
> uninhabited place' is a good description of these.
>
> If 'trailhead' degenerates into 'any intersection of a trail and a
> highway' (which is what it is in that National Park Service database)
> then it's kind of redundant. It appears to me that the Europeans have
> a more specific idea of what a 'trailhead' is - but I don't quite
> understand that idea, and I suspect that's because there are no
> trailheads of that sort near me, despite the fact that I'm within an
> hour's drive of hundreds of hiking trails, including a handful of 'big
> name' long-distance ones.
>
> I'm not against the proposal, necessarily, but I'm far from convinced
> that everyone is reading from the same page, and I'd like to avoid the
> risk of a false consensus.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e13ccd07/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list