[Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Sat Jan 5 19:57:21 UTC 2019

I can see your argument.

First question: what's the harm in combining highway=trailhead and
tourism=information? Note: I'm not asking this defensively or to advocate
it, just want to understand where the problem lies.

Second: Separating these two keys is no problem in the Dutch situation. We
chose to use the exact location of the landmark/stele. Earlier mappers had
chosen to use the information board with a name-tag added. Some had used a
parking area or a node in the parking area with a name. Some thought the
pancake restaurant was the most important place and used that as a
location. Some used the rcn or rwn node nearby, ande some the starting node
of one of the routes. I've seen it all.

Now, in the Dutch situation, the information board is almost always within
a few meters of the landmark/stele and the waymarks/guideposts directing
the users to the routes. That makes those elements fit within one node.
There is a kind of logic in combining the tags within one one.
In other situations/countries, it would be logical to use another
combination or not combine it at all.

Unless there is an actual real problem, I see no reason to prescribe
anything here at this point. Let the mapper map as seems most fitting for
that situation/setup. If there is a real problem with the current Dutch
tagging, something actually going wrong because of it, I will repair it, as
long as we keep the a usable dataset.

I would like to first complete step one: finalize and document basic
tagging to provide consistent basic mapping and consistent data for
-searching (by name), -selecting (by tag), -listing (=filter by tag into a
table), -rendering trailheads.

Search by name works, (osm-carto shows that): check.

Select by tag works (overpass shows that): check

Listing works in principle (=overpass select): small check, because there
is currently no example. Well, I can select and list in JOSM, I think
that's an example but not for the consumers.

rendering: no check. It can easily be done  of course, it's just a POI,
but... oh well. Later.

Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 12:23 schreef Tobias Wrede <list at tobias-wrede.de>:

> 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>:
>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Peter Elderson <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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190105/4e5876af/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list