[Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 04.01.2019 um 18:18 schrieb Peter Elderson:
> Let's agree to agree!
>
> Op vr 4 jan. 2019 om 16:52 schreef Kevin Kenny 
> <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com <mailto:kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com>>:
>
>     On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com
>     <mailto:pelderson at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > I'm trying to go for the minimal tagging that supports the most
>     of the use cases. Which is a node tagged highway=trailhead. It's
>     up to mappers / communities if and how they will apply and embed
>     that according to local, regional or country-specific needs or
>     definitions. Or maybe decide it's not useful in that situation at all.
>
>     If the definition is "a designated or customary place where a trip on
>     a trail begins or ends," I'm entirely on board.
>
I'm perfectly fine with this. Now an open question is still where to 
place this tag and how to combine it. The stalled hw=trailhead proposal 
specifically suggests to place a trailhead node alone or on a piece of 
highway: "A trailhead should be mapped as a node or a node that is part 
of a trail segment (i.e.,highway 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=path 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath>) and should be 
tagged primarily as highway 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=trailhead 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dtrailhead&action=edit&redlink=1>." 
At least I would rephrase that to something along "... or a node that is 
part of the trail segment or a highway leading to its trail(s)."

More problematic is the question of combination. I'm pretty much opposed 
to giving this object two top level keys: highway=trailhead and 
tourism=information. I think the thought of the  old proposal was to 
mark the point on a trail where to access it, hence hw=. Peter was more 
going in the direction of marking the point where we find information on 
how to access the trail (name, information board, sign, stele, ...), 
hence tourism=information + information=.

I would still try to separate the elements. We leave it with 
hw=trailhead + possibly a name + possibly including it in the route 
relation for the actual access point. Additionally, we map the 
amenities: information board, parking, toilets, picknick site etc. I'd 
welcome introducing something like tourism=information + 
information=trailhead or tourism=information + information=board + 
board_type=trailhead. Since a trailhead could be marked by other objects 
than a board the former might be more universal.

For the dutch case that would mean removing the hw=trailhead from all 
the points and changing the tourism=... to something new we agree on.

Tobias

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190105/ad9877b8/attachment.html>