[Tagging] Trailhead tagging
list at tobias-wrede.de
Sat Jan 5 20:55:06 UTC 2019
Am 05.01.2019 um 20:57 schrieb Peter Elderson:
> 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.
First of all I think this mixes two distinct features into one as I
described before: 1) the actual trail access, i. e. a point on the trail
or a highway section leading to it and 2) the information infrastructure
(information board, stele, you name it).
> Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 12:23 schreef Tobias Wrede <list at tobias-wrede.de
> <mailto:list at tobias-wrede.de>>:
> 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 think we should stick to the good old OSM rule "one feature - one OSM
Obviously, the highway access and the information can be very close by,
but pointing again at the TOP examples I mentioned before it's not
always the case. So I am really in favor in separating them.
Secondly, combining those makes it difficult for data consumers. Unless
they explicitly search for the combination of highway=trailhead and
tourism=information and treating the node separately, they might run
into problems. A renderer could for example display all information
boards on the map. But they might handle all highway elements before in
their processing chain and hence ignore the second top level key tourism
all together. In the end we would neither see the highway=trailhead nor
the information=board on the map.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging