Trailhead tagging

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
119 messages Options
1 ... 3456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

Graeme Fitzpatrick


On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 20:07, Dave Swarthout <[hidden email]> wrote:
Your proposal looks good. I would vote "yes" on it.

Yep, I would as well.

One every minor thought - under "How to map" you have "Name of the trailhead" - maybe change that to be "trailhead or trail / track"?
Reason is that in Australia they're (usually) called tracks, not trails :-), & in my experience, the spot you start walking from is very rarely named as such, it just has a sign to say "Whatever Track".

& interesting to see that there's already ~1400 of them in use!

Thanks

Graeme

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

EthnicFood IsGreat
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson

> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 20:30:56 +0100
> From: Peter Elderson <[hidden email]>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging
>
>
> I have added parking space, not as a requirement but as something that will
> usually be available. The only requirement is that the place is visibly
> designated or customary to hop on a trail.

[...]

Thanks!

Mark


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
Adapted the concept. 
1400+ is not bad for this kind of POI. 
In the OSM-Carto issue, 2K and a wiki-description based on consensus have been mentioned as minimum requirement for rendering the node at a reasonable zoom level. 

I think with this general description and a nice icon more trailheads will be mapped in the near future.

-- 
Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 16 jan. 2019 om 22:16 schreef Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]>:


On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 20:07, Dave Swarthout <[hidden email]> wrote:
Your proposal looks good. I would vote "yes" on it.

Yep, I would as well.

One every minor thought - under "How to map" you have "Name of the trailhead" - maybe change that to be "trailhead or trail / track"?
Reason is that in Australia they're (usually) called tracks, not trails :-), & in my experience, the spot you start walking from is very rarely named as such, it just has a sign to say "Whatever Track".

& interesting to see that there's already ~1400 of them in use!

Thanks

Graeme
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
in my experience, the spot you start walking from is very rarely named as such, it just has a sign to say "Whatever Track".

In that case, the trailhead does not have a name. The track or trail itself should have a name=* tag, but the trailhead should only be taggged with a name if it is different.

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:16 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 20:07, Dave Swarthout <[hidden email]> wrote:
Your proposal looks good. I would vote "yes" on it.

Yep, I would as well.

One every minor thought - under "How to map" you have "Name of the trailhead" - maybe change that to be "trailhead or trail / track"?
Reason is that in Australia they're (usually) called tracks, not trails :-), & in my experience, the spot you start walking from is very rarely named as such, it just has a sign to say "Whatever Track".

& interesting to see that there's already ~1400 of them in use!

Thanks

Graeme
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

Peter Elderson
Most trailheads I have seen mapped have a name that contains the trail/track/route name. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:trailhead#Photos

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 16 jan. 2019 om 22:50 schreef Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]>:
in my experience, the spot you start walking from is very rarely named as such, it just has a sign to say "Whatever Track".

In that case, the trailhead does not have a name. The track or trail itself should have a name=* tag, but the trailhead should only be taggged with a name if it is different.

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:16 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 20:07, Dave Swarthout <[hidden email]> wrote:
Your proposal looks good. I would vote "yes" on it.

Yep, I would as well.

One every minor thought - under "How to map" you have "Name of the trailhead" - maybe change that to be "trailhead or trail / track"?
Reason is that in Australia they're (usually) called tracks, not trails :-), & in my experience, the spot you start walking from is very rarely named as such, it just has a sign to say "Whatever Track".

& interesting to see that there's already ~1400 of them in use!

Thanks

Graeme
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

Kevin Kenny-3
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:29 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Most trailheads I have seen mapped have a name that contains the trail/track/route name. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:trailhead#Photos

That's the name of the route, not the name of the trailhead.

I recognize that your beloved TOP's are named, but naming a trailhead
is the exception, not the rule. Or at least near me, most trailheads
don't have names of their own. They are referred to by a description -
'the Prediger Road trailhead on the Devil's Path', 'the Stony Clove
trailhead on the Becker Hollow trail', 'the Elk Lake trailhead south
of Mount Marcy'.

For instance, one of your images:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:High_Peaks_Trailhead_and_Mileage_sign_-_panoramio.jpg
simply names the High Peaks Wilderness Area, which is a rather large
(275000 acres == 1111 km²) place with a couple of dozen trailheads.
From the names of the destinations, it appears to be a trailhead
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4239455477 for which the en route
signage would read 'Elk Lake' - the name of a nearby geographic
feature https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4094054, but that, too,
names the lake, not the trailhead. The destinations shown on the sign
are all in the interior of High Peaks Wilderness, with the exception
of the Adirondak Loj, which is a lodging/camping facility for hikers
(https://www.adk.org/stay/adirondak-loj-at-heart-lake/
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/489821677) and has road access.
The signpost doesn't describe a single route beyond Panther Gorge; the
destinations listed are accessed via various different trails. I don't
see a named trailhead anywhere.

Naming all of the trailheads that enter HPWA 'High Peaks Wilderness
Area' because that's what it says on the sign will serve only to
confuse.  Naming them by nearby geographic features will also be
confusing, and the en route signs aren't always consistent about
naming. One sign might say 'Mink Hollow', another 'Roaring Kill',
another 'Elka Park', depending on whether the valley, the stream, or
the settlement are used to identify the place - all three refer to the
same trailhead.

When the sign gives a trail name, that'll be confusing too. A long
trail may have dozens of trailheads, with the signs all bearing its
name.

And trailheads named by the location they're near will also confuse.
There are a lot of trails that converge on the grounds of the Loj, and
naming them all 'Adirondak Loj' will serve no purpose.

I'd say, by all means you should map the name if the trailhead has a
specific name that refers to it. Putting the name of the trail, the
name of the park, or the name of a nearby geographic feature on the
trailhead node is not the right thing unless that formally names the
trailhead as well.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

Peter Elderson
Op 17 jan. 2019 om 01:14 heeft Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:
>
> I'd say, by all means you should map the name if the trailhead has a
> specific name that refers to it. Putting the name of the trail, the
> name of the park, or the name of a nearby geographic feature on the
> trailhead node is not the right thing unless that formally names the
> trailhead as well.

That’s what I mean. The name is not required, but there is one, it’s important to tag it. (Why? Because it enables searching, listing and rendering by name)
Trailheads worth mapping tend to have names, see photo gallery, and google search. It is up to the mappers to decide if it’s worth mapping and determine what the name is, if any.
If the wording is not clear, can you provide a different wording?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

Jmapb
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson
On 1/16/2019 2:45 PM, Peter Elderson wrote:
I copied the page from the highway=bus_stop page, because the thing resembles a bus stop. 

This off the road bit can go. The idea, as discussed earlier, is not to include the node in the route or routes. The node allows people to hop on one or more routes, but is not part of these routes. 

Local mappers / communities can discuss where to put the node. For Nederland, current tagging is to put the node exactly where the landmark  pole or stele is. Mappers / communities may decide to use the location of an infoboard or banner, or a parking place or rest facility nearby the trail.

Worldwide at this moment, I see no basis for recommended further tagging, just the one basic node. 

Vr gr Peter Elderson

Thanks -- I can certainly imagine a mapper contemplating drawing an area for a more elaborate trailhead, to include parking or toilets for example, but I'm perfectly happy with 1) Keep it simple and just use a node, and 2) Put that node where it makes the most sense in local context.

Jason


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson

Currently, 1188 trailheads have a name tag in OSM. A few hundred have no name tag. 

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 17 jan. 2019 om 01:35 schreef Peter Elderson <[hidden email]>:
Op 17 jan. 2019 om 01:14 heeft Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:
>
> I'd say, by all means you should map the name if the trailhead has a
> specific name that refers to it. Putting the name of the trail, the
> name of the park, or the name of a nearby geographic feature on the
> trailhead node is not the right thing unless that formally names the
> trailhead as well.

That’s what I mean. The name is not required, but there is one, it’s important to tag it. (Why? Because it enables searching, listing and rendering by name)
Trailheads worth mapping tend to have names, see photo gallery, and google search. It is up to the mappers to decide if it’s worth mapping and determine what the name is, if any.
If the wording is not clear, can you provide a different wording?

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

Marc Gemis
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
A trailhead is the start of a trail, but I haven't seen the definition
of a trail yet.

An American trail seems like a long distance walking route in the
wilderness. It's probably the same in Australia, Is that
interpretation correct ? Is that a requirement for a trail ? If so,
you will be disappointed by what there trails are behind the
trailheads in The Netherlands (or Belgium).

m.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

Graeme Fitzpatrick

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 17:35, Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> wrote:
A trailhead is the start of a trail, but I haven't seen the definition
of a trail yet.

Wikipedia: trail is usually a pathtrack or unpaved lane or road.

In Australia, the term track can be used interchangeably with trail, and can refer to anything from a dirt road to an unpaved pedestrian path.
 
An American trail seems like a long distance walking route in the
wilderness. It's probably the same in Australia, Is that
interpretation correct ?

Frequently, but not always! 

Yes, they often are long (& sometimes very long!) but can also be quite short - ~300m?

Same thing for "wilderness" - yes, frequently, but not always.
 
Is that a requirement for a trail ? If so,
you will be disappointed by what there trails are behind the
trailheads in The Netherlands (or Belgium).

Maybe not disappointed, but possibly surprised (?) at how small & cramped everything is, in the same way that you would be shocked / amazed by what you found here! :-)

Thanks

Graeme 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

EthnicFood IsGreat
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson

> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 17:49:56 +1000
> From: Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging
>
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 17:35, Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> A trailhead is the start of a trail, but I haven't seen the definition
>> of a trail yet.
>>
> Wikipedia: A *trail* is usually a *path*, *track* or unpaved lane or road.
>
> In Australia, the term *track* can be used interchangeably with trail, and
> can refer to anything from a dirt road
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirt_road> to an unpaved pedestrian path
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footpath>.
>
>
>> An American trail seems like a long distance walking route in the
>> wilderness. It's probably the same in Australia, Is that
>> interpretation correct ?
>
> Frequently, but not always!
>
> Yes, they often are long (& sometimes *very* long!) but can also be quite
> short - ~300m?
>
> Same thing for "wilderness" - yes, frequently, but not always.
>
>
>> Is that a requirement for a trail ? If so,
>> you will be disappointed by what there trails are behind the
>> trailheads in The Netherlands (or Belgium).
>>
> Maybe not disappointed, but possibly surprised (?) at how small & cramped
> everything is, in the same way that you would be shocked / amazed by what
> you found here! :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme


Don't forget rail trails, which are sometimes paved.  According to
Wikipedia, for those of you that like to refer to it as a standard,
these are a type of trail.  And they have trailheads.

Mark



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

Tobias Wrede
In reply to this post by Marc Gemis
Am 17.01.2019 um 08:32 schrieb Marc Gemis:
> A trailhead is the start of a trail, but I haven't seen the definition
> of a trail yet.
>
> An American trail seems like a long distance walking route in the
> wilderness. It's probably the same in Australia, Is that
> interpretation correct ? Is that a requirement for a trail ? If so,
> you will be disappointed by what there trails are behind the
> trailheads in The Netherlands (or Belgium).

 From my European view I would exclude the wilderness bit. A lot of
marked trails here path trough built-up area. There are even specific
trails mostly through very urban area. I would say a trail is anything
that would qualify for a route=hiking/bicycle/mtb/horse (possibly ski,
snowmobile, inline_skates,... , I've never dealt with the latter ones).

I would also encourage including the trailhead in the respective route
relation(s) with role=trailhead.

Tobias


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

Marc Gemis
Thanks Tobias and Graeme before for your views on trails.

I first try to understand what a trail/trailhead is in the USA and
Australia, before deciding on how to apply it locally.
Of course, it would be different in Europe, especially in a small
country like Belgium with not a lot of open space.

I understand that in areas with a low density of footpaths, any
junction of a trail and a road can be a trailhead.
However, there are many such junctions in Flanders, as there are many
short stretches of paths and tracks. Those short stretches are usually
connect, but you often have to cross a road.

So limiting it to named trails would be an option, however, the
tourist agencies seem to replace all such named walks with walking
node networks, so "trails" are now everywhere.
This means that you can start almost anywhere on a signposted walk.
Just take a look at
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=9!50.9966!4.9715 and see how
fine mazed the orange networks are in Flanders and The Netherlands.
Note that not all network routes are mapped in Flanders yet and they
also rolled out a virtual network, which is no longer marked along the
way, but for which you need an app or GPS. So some holes will have to
be filled on the waymarkedtrails map.

So I wonder whether we should map all trial x road junctions as
trailheads or limit them to places with more facilities (just to be
clear, locally, in Flanders). I don't know.

m.

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 9:25 AM Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Am 17.01.2019 um 08:32 schrieb Marc Gemis:
> > A trailhead is the start of a trail, but I haven't seen the definition
> > of a trail yet.
> >
> > An American trail seems like a long distance walking route in the
> > wilderness. It's probably the same in Australia, Is that
> > interpretation correct ? Is that a requirement for a trail ? If so,
> > you will be disappointed by what there trails are behind the
> > trailheads in The Netherlands (or Belgium).
>
>  From my European view I would exclude the wilderness bit. A lot of
> marked trails here path trough built-up area. There are even specific
> trails mostly through very urban area. I would say a trail is anything
> that would qualify for a route=hiking/bicycle/mtb/horse (possibly ski,
> snowmobile, inline_skates,... , I've never dealt with the latter ones).
>
> I would also encourage including the trailhead in the respective route
> relation(s) with role=trailhead.
>
> Tobias
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

Tobias Wrede
Am 18.01.2019 um 09:48 schrieb Marc Gemis:

> So limiting it to named trails would be an option, however, the
> tourist agencies seem to replace all such named walks with walking
> node networks, so "trails" are now everywhere.
> This means that you can start almost anywhere on a signposted walk.
> Just take a look at
> https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=9!50.9966!4.9715 and see how
> fine mazed the orange networks are in Flanders and The Netherlands.
> Note that not all network routes are mapped in Flanders yet and they
> also rolled out a virtual network, which is no longer marked along the
> way, but for which you need an app or GPS. So some holes will have to
> be filled on the waymarkedtrails map.
>
> So I wonder whether we should map all trial x road junctions as
> trailheads or limit them to places with more facilities (just to be
> clear, locally, in Flanders). I don't know.

I see your point. I had forgotten about node networks. While I haven't
really seen any for hiking yet personally, they are also growing here
for the cycling network. And of course they are mapped as route
relations. I'm not sure if I should reconsider my earlier suggestion to
put trailheads on anything in a route relation or not. While you clearly
also have to enter a node network somewhere I see them more as a general
navigation aid than a "trail". Whenever I use them I start from home or
wherever I am, find my way to the closest node in the general direction
and take it from there. I don't go to that node by car or bus first.
It's probable that I already enter the network somewhere inbetween two
nodes.

So I wouldn't consider every node as a trailhead. And i would not put a
trailhead on every intersection of a road and a network leg. If there
was a somehow designated or customary place, though, where you would
start hiking/cycling on the node network that could be marked as a
trailhead with the same rights as on a "classical trail".

Does that make sense?

Tobi


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

Kevin Kenny-3
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 5:54 AM Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > So I wonder whether we should map all trial x road junctions as
> > trailheads or limit them to places with more facilities (just to be
> > clear, locally, in Flanders). I don't know.
>
> I see your point. I had forgotten about node networks. While I haven't
> really seen any for hiking yet personally, they are also growing here
> for the cycling network. And of course they are mapped as route
> relations. I'm not sure if I should reconsider my earlier suggestion to
> put trailheads on anything in a route relation or not. While you clearly
> also have to enter a node network somewhere I see them more as a general
> navigation aid than a "trail". Whenever I use them I start from home or
> wherever I am, find my way to the closest node in the general direction
> and take it from there. I don't go to that node by car or bus first.
> It's probable that I already enter the network somewhere inbetween two
> nodes.
>
> So I wouldn't consider every node as a trailhead. And i would not put a
> trailhead on every intersection of a road and a network leg. If there
> was a somehow designated or customary place, though, where you would
> start hiking/cycling on the node network that could be marked as a
> trailhead with the same rights as on a "classical trail".
>
> Does that make sense?

We have networks of urban trails in the US as well, and some of our
wilderness trails briefly enter towns. We have rail-trails and even
some peculiar hybrids. (The Long Path in New York walks on everything
from Broadway in New York City to a stretch in the Catskills that's
probably T3-T4 on the Swiss Alpine Club scale.) I'll admit that in all
the talking at cross purposes, I wasn't giving enough thought to urban
trails, even though I've mapped them.

You're entirely right that I wouldn't call every road-trail
intersection a 'trailhead' in a suburban preserve like the area in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/42.8044/-73.8567 !  If asked
what I might designate by that name, it would be just the parking at
the turning circle in front of the gate to the wastewater plant, and
possibly the area by the Lock 7 boat launch. Those, and not the many
entrances off the surrounding streets, are where most users start
walking or cycling. I might not tag Blatnick Park to the north,
because most users of the park are there for other recreations. Dog
walkers, ball players, disc golfers, and the like are often surprised
to see walkers or cyclists heading off into the woods using trail
entrances that are marked only with paint blazes. The trailheads, now
that I think about it, are the ones with signboards, parking, seating,
and so on. (Generally not names, we simply don't often assign names to
trallheads on this side of the pond - we just call them "the XYZ
trailhead" where XYZ is the name of some nearby feature.) I do, every
day, jump on and off the Mohawk-Hudson Bike/Hike Trail at
non-designated trailheads - because I live a couple of city blocks
from it, and my workplace is right by it as well, so it's part of my
daily commute. And you're right that when I turn off the foot/cycleway
onto the driveway of my workplace, I wouldn't label that a
'trailhead!'

Moving into the woods and farms, but still very close to the city,
near https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=42.82108&lon=-73.98706#map=15/42.8080/-74.1299
I'd label the crossings as 'trailheads' only for the ones that have
signboards and parking (often for just a couple of cars!)  People
don't customarily start or end a trip just anywhere that the trail
crosses a road.

By the time you're in the Big Woods, where the road crossings are
separated by what's often more than a day's walk, every road crossing
is indeed a trailhead, no matter how few facilities it offers.

For the urban/suburban ones, I've really never thought of mapping them
specially - because generally just, 'here is parking' and the presence
of trails was something I thought was enough. I can see, nevertheless,
where a special-purpose map devoted to outdoor recreation might want
to show 'here's a good place to start to walk/run/cycle/ride/ski' -
with the appropriate sport icons, so I'm surely not averse to mapping
them.

The backcountry ones are much more Spartan, and I have been inclined
to map them, not only as "here's a place to start a hike/ski tour" but
more importantly as "here's a place to get *out* of the wilderness in
the event of trouble".

I still think that 'designated or customary place to start or end a
trip' covers them all, though. Where I jump on and off the
foot/cycleway on the way to work is neither designated nor customary
for recreational users - the spots are certainly lawful, and used by
the people in my neighbourhood, but most users of that trail would
walk or ride right past them. Wilderness trips customarily start and
end, well, wherever you can reach that's close to where you want to
go. If I have to road-walk a couple or three km because there's
nowhere to park at the trailhead, I'll grumble, but it's part of the
experience.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

Marc Gemis
In reply to this post by Tobias Wrede
It certainly makes sense. As I wrote before, there are quite few
parkings in the center of small villages where they put up information
maps. They might be candidates for trailheads.
We'll see whether people will start mapping them as trailheads.

regards

m.

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:54 AM Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Am 18.01.2019 um 09:48 schrieb Marc Gemis:
> > So limiting it to named trails would be an option, however, the
> > tourist agencies seem to replace all such named walks with walking
> > node networks, so "trails" are now everywhere.
> > This means that you can start almost anywhere on a signposted walk.
> > Just take a look at
> > https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=9!50.9966!4.9715 and see how
> > fine mazed the orange networks are in Flanders and The Netherlands.
> > Note that not all network routes are mapped in Flanders yet and they
> > also rolled out a virtual network, which is no longer marked along the
> > way, but for which you need an app or GPS. So some holes will have to
> > be filled on the waymarkedtrails map.
> >
> > So I wonder whether we should map all trial x road junctions as
> > trailheads or limit them to places with more facilities (just to be
> > clear, locally, in Flanders). I don't know.
>
> I see your point. I had forgotten about node networks. While I haven't
> really seen any for hiking yet personally, they are also growing here
> for the cycling network. And of course they are mapped as route
> relations. I'm not sure if I should reconsider my earlier suggestion to
> put trailheads on anything in a route relation or not. While you clearly
> also have to enter a node network somewhere I see them more as a general
> navigation aid than a "trail". Whenever I use them I start from home or
> wherever I am, find my way to the closest node in the general direction
> and take it from there. I don't go to that node by car or bus first.
> It's probable that I already enter the network somewhere inbetween two
> nodes.
>
> So I wouldn't consider every node as a trailhead. And i would not put a
> trailhead on every intersection of a road and a network leg. If there
> was a somehow designated or customary place, though, where you would
> start hiking/cycling on the node network that could be marked as a
> trailhead with the same rights as on a "classical trail".
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Tobi
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by Tobias Wrede
To complicate matters, long hiking routes and cycling routes are increasingy routed using the node networks. On the web you'll find a series of node numbers, in between nodes ypu follow the node network waymarks. 
Any node servicing one of these trails might be considered a trailhead. In Nederland, a lot of nodes (many thousands instead of a few hundreds) would then qualify! That's why in Nederland we need to give additional guidelines.

Just a node, that's a navigational aid, correct. A node with extra facilities, dedicated to transfer from car to routes, that might qualify in Nederland.

Other countries, different guidelines, I'm sure.

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 18 jan. 2019 om 11:54 schreef Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]>:
While you clearly
also have to enter a node network somewhere I see them more as a general
navigation aid than a "trail". 


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson
Jan 11, 2019, 8:43 AM by [hidden email]:
Analogy is not right. Not tagging all trailheads with this wikipedia reference, just the specific limited set fitting this specific concept described on the wikipedia page. 
Any of the existing prefixed keys does not fit either, e.g. brand:wikipedia or operator:wikipedia is not fitting: it's not a brand and it's not an operator, it's a concept used by multiple operators (will be 12 operators in the end).
So you could invent concept:wikipedia and add that to the trailheads using the concept. What would that accomplish? Exactly the same information, on exactly the same amount of nodes, just bypassing the existing referencing mechanisms, making it useless. The prefix keys are useful if multiple wikipedia references are applicable (according to the mapper). 
It is useful as it avoids incorrect wikipedia tags that are supposed to link article specifically
about a given feature.

There are some uses of that - for example Nominatim using it as importance hint,
I have a tool detecting tourism attractions, and there are probablt many more uses that 
I am unaware of.

I you consider adding this link as valuable please use a proper tag (AKA not wikipedia) - otherwise
someone sooner or later will remove such incorrect uses (and it is not certain that she/he will
bother with inventing new key).


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
1 ... 3456