[Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

pangoSE pangose at riseup.net
Sat Jul 25 16:07:27 UTC 2020

Fine by me to attach them to whatever.
I would not map them twice.

Anyway I never met or heard about anyone who wanted to navigate to a signpost. Usually people navigate to attractions like a lake or a firepit or a viewpoint or simple follow a route and walk past the guideposts.
I find them sometimes rotten/broken and whatever so with a digital map in hand they are not really needed. Certainly not needed in the route relations for routing purposes.
There might be a stastical usecase like "which route has the most signposts per km?" But aside from that they are irrelevant aside from being visible on the map as any kind of man-made thing you pass by like a building or mast.
If someone really wants to I'm sure you can tweat a query in postgresql to output all signposts along a path within x meters from the path without needing to have them in any relation.

Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> skrev: (22 juli 2020 20:19:16 CEST)
>sent from a phone
>> On 22. Jul 2020, at 17:10, pangoSE <pangose at riseup.net> wrote:
>> I suggest you add the guidepost to a node on the path instead.
>I am mapping guideposts rather rarely, when I do it, I place them on
>their actual position, sometimes on building outlines, or on retaining
>walls, or just flying in space. I would not want them on the highway.
>Sometimes at near-crossroads there is a single post for 4 ways, but in
>the details it is 2 T-crossings a few meters apart. With your proposal
>you would have to use 2 OpenStreetMap guideposts where there is only
>one in reality.
>Cheers Martin 
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200725/2b28134d/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list