[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:

Here is another one, with emphasis on Parking. On the left behind the
parking is the actual access point to the trails.

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