[Tagging] Trailhead tagging
marc.gemis at gmail.com
Fri Jan 4 12:52:30 UTC 2019
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 13:22 schreef Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com>:
>> I wonder why it is under "highway", it seems more related to "tourism"
>> / "information".
> Current usage: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=trailhead
> Overpass shows most usage is in the US, Canada and Japan, now also Nederland, and some in Italy.
> highway can be applied to nodes and ways, and it compares nicely to highway=bus_stop. A trailhead is then seen as a "trail stop" for trail "passengers". I think that's why it was chosen in the trailhead proposal. I saw no compelling reason to change that, even though I can see your argument to use tourism=.
> Advantage of highway= is that you can still add the tourism= key for an information board if it coincides with the trailhead.
> Do you see an actual problem with this usage?
since the "key" is not really that important IMHO, I'm fine with "highway"
>> Another problem I see is that there is no other definition for
>> trailheads in The Netherlands than "location being picked by the
>> tourist agency as trailhead" or better "location being designated by
>> the tourist agency as TOP"
>> It seems to me that any other definition means that one has to map
>> many more places in The Netherlands as trailhead or that some of the
>> "picked by tourist agency" are not a trailhead.
> Lots of places give access to trails, of course. But if they are not visibly designated/designed and operated (not just picked!), I would not map those places as trailheads. No one has to do that. On the other hand, in other countries useers may see fit to map those kind of locations as trailheads, because they want to search/list them and see them on a map.
I am not convinced that your definition of trailhead as a placed
selected by the tourist agency for their "TOP" list of places is
compatible with the attempts you and others made to define trailhead.
If it's incompatible because you require less or other characteristics
I see that as a problem.
And what if someone maps those trailhead-like places that you do not
consider as trailheads ? Is your list broken ?
How do you determine the facilities of a trailhead if that is mapped
as a point ? Does one have to do a "in the neighborhood of" query ? Or
would it be better to map the trailhead as an area or site-relation to
explicitly map what belongs to the trailhead and what not ?
More information about the Tagging