Trailhead tagging

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
119 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trailhead tagging

AlaskaDave
Peter: " Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way of more complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element which supports all the other options. "

+1

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sometimes it would, sometimes it would not. If the node actually represents the start of the trail, it is already in the relation because it is part of the way that belongs to the route. In the situation that a trailhead node represents a named cluster of helpful facilities/amenities in the vicinity of several trails or networks, you wouldn't want to add it to all the relations, because a. it's not actually part of the routes and b. maintenance of all the routes would be quite error-prone and not really intuitive.

A site relation has been suggested for the more complex trailheads. You would include the node there, the parking(s), the information booth or guide stands, maybe PT-stops, possibly the route relations you can access from the site...

Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way of more complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element which supports all the other options. 

Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 12:04 schreef Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]>:
Wouldn't it make sense to add the trail head (node) to a route relation
with role=trail_head?

Am 01.01.2019 um 12:54 schrieb Peter Elderson:
> At this point, I settle for just requiring that it's a named location
> visibly designated as access point for one ore more recreational routes.
>
> So just a node tagged highway=trailhead and name=<Name of the trailhead>.
>
> Which node? Well, if it's just the start with a name on a guidepost,
> use the guidepost node. If it's an information board with the name,
> use that. If there is a flagpole or a stele or say a statue of the
> pioneer who walked it first, use that. If there is none of that, use
> the location which presents itself naturally as a starrting point when
> you get there. If there is no such location, then it's not a trailhead!
>
> Anything else: optional, map and tag as seems appropriate.
>


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


--
Vr gr Peter Elderson
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Jo-2
Please don't add public transport stops to hiking route relations. That would be really confusing.

Polyglot

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:39 PM Dave Swarthout <[hidden email]> wrote:
Peter: " Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way of more complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element which supports all the other options. "

+1

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sometimes it would, sometimes it would not. If the node actually represents the start of the trail, it is already in the relation because it is part of the way that belongs to the route. In the situation that a trailhead node represents a named cluster of helpful facilities/amenities in the vicinity of several trails or networks, you wouldn't want to add it to all the relations, because a. it's not actually part of the routes and b. maintenance of all the routes would be quite error-prone and not really intuitive.

A site relation has been suggested for the more complex trailheads. You would include the node there, the parking(s), the information booth or guide stands, maybe PT-stops, possibly the route relations you can access from the site...

Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way of more complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element which supports all the other options. 

Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 12:04 schreef Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]>:
Wouldn't it make sense to add the trail head (node) to a route relation
with role=trail_head?

Am 01.01.2019 um 12:54 schrieb Peter Elderson:
> At this point, I settle for just requiring that it's a named location
> visibly designated as access point for one ore more recreational routes.
>
> So just a node tagged highway=trailhead and name=<Name of the trailhead>.
>
> Which node? Well, if it's just the start with a name on a guidepost,
> use the guidepost node. If it's an information board with the name,
> use that. If there is a flagpole or a stele or say a statue of the
> pioneer who walked it first, use that. If there is none of that, use
> the location which presents itself naturally as a starrting point when
> you get there. If there is no such location, then it's not a trailhead!
>
> Anything else: optional, map and tag as seems appropriate.
>


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


--
Vr gr Peter Elderson
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sometimes it would, sometimes it would not. If the node actually represents the start of the trail, it is already in the relation because it is part of the way that belongs to the route. In the situation that a trailhead node represents a named cluster of helpful facilities/amenities in the vicinity of several trails or networks, you wouldn't want to add it to all the relations, because a. it's not actually part of the routes and b. maintenance of all the routes would be quite error-prone and not really intuitive.
>
> A site relation has been suggested for the more complex trailheads. You would include the node there, the parking(s), the information booth or guide stands, maybe PT-stops, possibly the route relations you can access from the site...
>
> Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way of more complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element which supports all the other options.

At the risk of repeating myself:

I think I'd need more concrete examples before I'd support such a
proposal. I think that we have people in this conversation with
different cultural expectations of what a 'trailhead' is. My
northeastern-US definition is, "anywhere that you get on and off a
trail", so usually there's parking, and perhaps a notice board or a
register book to sign, but I don't expect many more amenities than
that, and sometimes not even those. It may happen that a trailhead is
in a developed facility in a park (such as a ranger station,
recreation ground, campground or visitors' center), or even in a
populated place, but in that case I think of the amenities as
associated with the other facility and not with the trailhead.
(Except, of course, for the trail-specific ones such as notice boards,
signposts and registers!)

If what's under consideration is 'a NAMED place to get on and off a
trail,' then I know of only a handful of trailheads anywhere me that
have names other than the names of geographic features that they're
near. (The "Route 23 trailhead" or the "Roaring Brook trailhead" are
typical - they are simply informal descriptions, not real names.)
There are a handful of exceptions, like 'Sled Harbor' (near 42.5237 N
74.5629 W) or 'Elk Pen'
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1305445030) but they are actually
described well by place=locality, since they name the place, not the
trailhead. Historically, Elk Pen was where rail tycoon E.H. Harriman
kept the elk for his private hunting preserve, and Sled Harbor was
where loggers stored their sledges in the summer months. 'Named
uninhabited place' is a good description of these.

If 'trailhead' degenerates into 'any intersection of a trail and a
highway' (which is what it is in that National Park Service database)
then it's kind of redundant. It appears to me that the Europeans have
a more specific idea of what a 'trailhead' is - but I don't quite
understand that idea, and I suspect that's because there are no
trailheads of that sort near me, despite the fact that I'm within an
hour's drive of hundreds of hiking trails, including a handful of 'big
name' long-distance ones.

I'm not against the proposal, necessarily, but I'm far from convinced
that everyone is reading from the same page, and I'd like to avoid the
risk of a false consensus.

_______________________________________________
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 Jo-2
I agree. That is not suggested.

Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 19:05 schreef Jo <[hidden email]>:
Please don't add public transport stops to hiking route relations. That would be really confusing.

Polyglot

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:39 PM Dave Swarthout <[hidden email]> wrote:
Peter: " Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way of more complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element which supports all the other options. "

+1

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sometimes it would, sometimes it would not. If the node actually represents the start of the trail, it is already in the relation because it is part of the way that belongs to the route. In the situation that a trailhead node represents a named cluster of helpful facilities/amenities in the vicinity of several trails or networks, you wouldn't want to add it to all the relations, because a. it's not actually part of the routes and b. maintenance of all the routes would be quite error-prone and not really intuitive.

A site relation has been suggested for the more complex trailheads. You would include the node there, the parking(s), the information booth or guide stands, maybe PT-stops, possibly the route relations you can access from the site...

Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way of more complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element which supports all the other options. 

Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 12:04 schreef Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]>:
Wouldn't it make sense to add the trail head (node) to a route relation
with role=trail_head?

Am 01.01.2019 um 12:54 schrieb Peter Elderson:
> At this point, I settle for just requiring that it's a named location
> visibly designated as access point for one ore more recreational routes.
>
> So just a node tagged highway=trailhead and name=<Name of the trailhead>.
>
> Which node? Well, if it's just the start with a name on a guidepost,
> use the guidepost node. If it's an information board with the name,
> use that. If there is a flagpole or a stele or say a statue of the
> pioneer who walked it first, use that. If there is none of that, use
> the location which presents itself naturally as a starrting point when
> you get there. If there is no such location, then it's not a trailhead!
>
> Anything else: optional, map and tag as seems appropriate.
>


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


--
Vr gr Peter Elderson
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Vr gr Peter Elderson

_______________________________________________
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 Kevin Kenny-3
Copying from an earlier response: Designated starting point for multiple routes into a nature area.  There is a designed marking pole or stele, information boards, seats or benches, free parking space nearby. This one is in a small village: 

Here is another one, with emphasis on Parking. On the left behind the parking is the actual access point to the trails.

The operators are governmental bodies. They publish the lists on recreation websites. Each province has its own list. VVV of course lists/presents them as well.

These points are designed for trail access. 

Some other examples have been mailed by others, I thought?



Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 19:44 schreef Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>:
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sometimes it would, sometimes it would not. If the node actually represents the start of the trail, it is already in the relation because it is part of the way that belongs to the route. In the situation that a trailhead node represents a named cluster of helpful facilities/amenities in the vicinity of several trails or networks, you wouldn't want to add it to all the relations, because a. it's not actually part of the routes and b. maintenance of all the routes would be quite error-prone and not really intuitive.
>
> A site relation has been suggested for the more complex trailheads. You would include the node there, the parking(s), the information booth or guide stands, maybe PT-stops, possibly the route relations you can access from the site...
>
> Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way of more complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element which supports all the other options.

At the risk of repeating myself:

I think I'd need more concrete examples before I'd support such a
proposal. I think that we have people in this conversation with
different cultural expectations of what a 'trailhead' is. My
northeastern-US definition is, "anywhere that you get on and off a
trail", so usually there's parking, and perhaps a notice board or a
register book to sign, but I don't expect many more amenities than
that, and sometimes not even those. It may happen that a trailhead is
in a developed facility in a park (such as a ranger station,
recreation ground, campground or visitors' center), or even in a
populated place, but in that case I think of the amenities as
associated with the other facility and not with the trailhead.
(Except, of course, for the trail-specific ones such as notice boards,
signposts and registers!)

If what's under consideration is 'a NAMED place to get on and off a
trail,' then I know of only a handful of trailheads anywhere me that
have names other than the names of geographic features that they're
near. (The "Route 23 trailhead" or the "Roaring Brook trailhead" are
typical - they are simply informal descriptions, not real names.)
There are a handful of exceptions, like 'Sled Harbor' (near 42.5237 N
74.5629 W) or 'Elk Pen'
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1305445030) but they are actually
described well by place=locality, since they name the place, not the
trailhead. Historically, Elk Pen was where rail tycoon E.H. Harriman
kept the elk for his private hunting preserve, and Sled Harbor was
where loggers stored their sledges in the summer months. 'Named
uninhabited place' is a good description of these.

If 'trailhead' degenerates into 'any intersection of a trail and a
highway' (which is what it is in that National Park Service database)
then it's kind of redundant. It appears to me that the Europeans have
a more specific idea of what a 'trailhead' is - but I don't quite
understand that idea, and I suspect that's because there are no
trailheads of that sort near me, despite the fact that I'm within an
hour's drive of hundreds of hiking trails, including a handful of 'big
name' long-distance ones.

I'm not against the proposal, necessarily, but I'm far from convinced
that everyone is reading from the same page, and I'd like to avoid the
risk of a false consensus.

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


--
Vr gr Peter Elderson

_______________________________________________
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 Kevin Kenny-3
Am 02.01.2019 um 19:42 Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> At the risk of repeating myself:
>
> I think I'd need more concrete examples before I'd support such a
> proposal.

Yes, I second this request.

> If 'trailhead' degenerates into 'any intersection of a trail and a
> highway' (which is what it is in that National Park Service database)
> then it's kind of redundant.

My examples below show they are rather a placeholder for 'any
intersection of a trail and a highway' .

> It appears to me that the Europeans have
> a more specific idea of what a 'trailhead' is - but I don't quite
> understand that idea, and I suspect that's because there are no
> trailheads of that sort near me, despite the fact that I'm within an
> hour's drive of hundreds of hiking trails, including a handful of 'big
> name' long-distance ones.
Please don't generalize. From a German perspective I share your
uneasiness (see my earlier remarks). Funnily, I always had the
impression that in the US you have the more specific idea of what a
trailhead is. :-)


I looked at some of the trailheads in the Netherlands
(http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/EV4):

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092027
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092007
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092068

All were tourism=information + information=board but none were in any
way connected to a trail let alone to any other highway=* feature. Often
there wasn't even a tagged route/trail nearby. As such I understand the
hw=trailhead is important to find such trail on the map in the first
place if the trail itself is not or cannot be mapped.

What I don't understand is why the highway tag is used to carry the
information. The way you have mapped the trailheads Peter I would leave
them under some subkey of information, e.g. tourism=information +
information=board + board_type=trailhead.

In the proposal the hw=trailhead is supposed to "be mapped as a node or
a node that is part of a trail segment (i.e.,highway=path) and should be
tagged primarily as highway=trailhead".
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trailhead#Tagging)

As a side note: Looking at the examples I found that you added keys like
wikipedia=nl:Toeristisch Overstappunt
url=https://gpsfietsroutesnederland.nl/toeristische-overstappunten/
website=https://www.natuurpoorten.nl/

These are all generic references that could be added to the OSM wiki
page. On the individual trailheads I would expect a website of the
specific trail.

Regards,

Tobias


_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:58 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Designated starting point for multiple routes into a nature area.  There is a designed marking pole or stele, information boards, seats or benches, free parking space nearby.

> The operators are governmental bodies. They publish the lists on recreation websites. Each province has its own list.

What of these are required characteristics, and what are merely usual?
 A lot of trails in the US are operated by non-government volunteer
organizations, and there's no central registry. (Some of these
organizations are more organized than others.)

> Some other examples have been mailed by others, I thought?

Some of the examples were mine, and I thought that you had rejected
them as not being 'trailheads' because of a relative lack of
facilities - typically at most a few parking places, a notice board
and a guidepost.

So, a largish collection from my area, none of which quite meet your criteria:

I would imagine that
http://www.nptrail.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/NPT-Section1.jpg
might qualify, since it has all the above (parking, information kiosk,
seats, and I presume that arch would qualify as a 'marking pole or
stele') - except that it's the jumping-off point for a single long
(220 km) route, not multiple routes.

1. I'd imagine that https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/16998968697
would be pretty marginal, since it's got just a wide compacted spot on
the roadside, with a notice board and register book, and it has no
name. It's very typical of what we'd call trailheads around here,
though. The notice board and register are present at the ones in
wilderness areas, because there's a legal requirement to register when
entering and leaving a wilderness area, and at the ones belonging to
the land conservancies (they use visitor statistics in grant
proposals, and ask that visitors register as a courtesy). For this
particular trail, the operator is a private conservancy, so it's
nongovernmental.

2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14041171575/ was another
example I gave earlier - the start of two or three trails, but in that
case it's just a hairpin turn on a 4WD road, with enough natural bare
shale to park a few SUV's, and paint-blazed trails leading off. I seem
to recall that one got the answer, 'not a trailhead - having one or
more foot trails heading off into a nature area doesn't make it a
trailhead.' The operator here is indeed the state, and the trailhead
is listed in a state database.

3. I'd imagine that https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/29381789461
would also not be a 'trailhead', because it lacks parking (it's lawful
and reasonably safe to park on the side of the road, but not right
there in the snowplow turn-around), seating, signage, a register, or
anything except for a paint-blazed trail. Still, it's an access point
to a major long-distance (600+ km) trail. The operator is a private
volunteer organization, and the trail there follows easements over
private land. I don't know of a database listing this trailhead,
although it shows up in the trail's guidebook.

4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/19584241442 is even more
primitive. It's got a compacted verge big enough to park a few
vehicles, and that little sign on the tree says 'TRAIL HEAD PARKING.'
The notice board and register are a few km back on the road, because
that's a grandfathered road in a designated wilderness, and so drivers
have to register on entry. (There's a ranger station at the nearest
entry gate.) The trailhead is state-owned, operated by the Adirondack
Mountain Club, and listed in the state database. There are no
facilities other than the sign and the blazed trail departing.

5. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/10282292144/ lacks parking,
seating, or a notice board. (Again, there's possible roadside parking
not too far away, and I suppose you can sit on the highway guard
rail.) There is a notice board and a register, but because of problems
in the past with vandalism, they're about half a km into the woods
along that access trail. The operator is the state.

6. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/8463648046 has signage, and a
notice board, but only roadside parking and no seating. The access
trail from there is popular enough that the grass is well trodden down
in summer and there is an obvious snowshoe track in winter. The notice
board is disused. The operator is the county, which has no trailhead
database. The county doesn't require visitor registration, so there's
no book.

7. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/28554220940 has an obvious
paint blaze and plastic trail marker. There is only roadside parking.
The notice board is clearly abandoned, and the register book is
nowhere to be found. The operator is the state, but this trailhead is
not in its list. The trailhead, however, does appear in the trail's
guidebook.

The only one with a toilet is the one by the Northville Arch. (There
may be a thunder box[1] somewhere near 4. I didn't look, not being in
need of one just then._

None of these would be in the National Park Service database that
someone thought was a register of all trailheads in the US.

So, what among these qualifies as a 'trailhead'?  All of them are
designated points from which a hike, ski or ride might start. Only one
(the Northville arch) has the full set of facilities that you list,
but it's among the volunteer-maintained ones, and I'm not sure whether
the landowner is the village, or one of the adjacent businesses. I
seem to recall that the arch was erected by the Chamber of Commerce (a
private consortium, as are Chambers of Commerce in general over here).
None of them has all the attributes you mention.

All of these, except for the first, are documented access points to
major trails, hundreds of km long, including the Appalachian Trail,
the Finger Lakes Trail, the New York Long Path, and the
Northville-Placid Trail. They're not local anomalies for minor nature
areas, they're pretty typical of wild-forest or wilderness trailheads.

[1] A thunder box might als be called a "loo with a view."
https://st.depositphotos.com/1518508/3320/i/950/depositphotos_33209389-stock-photo-wilderness-toilet.jpg
is typical. For some reason, I don't seem ever to have photographed
one myself.)

_______________________________________________
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
Thanks for the comments. Please understand that the mentioned proposal is not my proposal. 

We just kept the idea of a trailhead node marking a place specifically and visibly designated to start one or more hiking routes, bicycle routes, canoe routes, horseriding routes.  Just a crossing or the starting arrow  of a single route has no need for this kind of tagging. Just a map or a board, not a trailhead. Just a parking, not a trailhead. 

In the US many trailheads have been mapped because they are places where you are allowed to access a single trail. The may not even have a name other than "Start of <trail name>" and a location name, but the are listed and offered as designated trailheads.  

These simple trailheads as they have been tagged consist of a node tagged highway=trailhead and usually the name, and someties additional tags. The node may be standalone or may be the first node of the trail or of a branch. The node if standalone may coincide with a board or map or guidepost. 

So my suggestion is exactly that: use a node marked as trailhead, preferably with a name it can be extracted, listed and rendered as being a designated trailhead.

In Nederland we use some further tagging to indicate the modalities and the facilities. The trailheads are specifically designated and designed for transit to routes of all kinds: bicycle en walking routes, roundtrips and networks are standard, free parking space must be available, a special landmark marks them, and there are always some benches; a restaurant or cafe nearby. 

To see the trails starting at one of these places you best look at Nederland on waymarkedtrails. They all have multiple hiking/foot routes and walking routes to hop on, and most support other modalities. 
Pity that the trailheads themselves are not yet rendered and clickable on waymarkedtrails, but we are working on that. 

So tagging becomes more complicated, but the basic function is still the same: search, list and render places specifically designed to get out of the car and start walking, cycling etcetera. 
The node in this use case will always be standalone because of the multimodality and many routes that it serves. 

About the use of referencing tags. I agree this is not yet the best result. Wikipedia links to the dutch page for TOP's (as they are called here), I think that is correct. url links to a site which lists all the official dutch trailheads. website links to the recreational publishing sites of different official operators. Each province has its own operator (and trailhead style).  Some of those have a web page for each trailhead, others have a simple list, others an interactive map or search function... and they reorganise quite often. Permalinks? What? Never heard of...) so we don't link deep but refer to a list/search/map/filter page.

I'm sure the coming years will show what keeps and what not.


Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 23:43 schreef Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]>:
Am 02.01.2019 um 19:42 Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> At the risk of repeating myself:
>
> I think I'd need more concrete examples before I'd support such a
> proposal.

Yes, I second this request.

> If 'trailhead' degenerates into 'any intersection of a trail and a
> highway' (which is what it is in that National Park Service database)
> then it's kind of redundant.

My examples below show they are rather a placeholder for 'any
intersection of a trail and a highway' .

> It appears to me that the Europeans have
> a more specific idea of what a 'trailhead' is - but I don't quite
> understand that idea, and I suspect that's because there are no
> trailheads of that sort near me, despite the fact that I'm within an
> hour's drive of hundreds of hiking trails, including a handful of 'big
> name' long-distance ones.
Please don't generalize. From a German perspective I share your
uneasiness (see my earlier remarks). Funnily, I always had the
impression that in the US you have the more specific idea of what a
trailhead is. :-)


I looked at some of the trailheads in the Netherlands
(http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/EV4):

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092027
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092007
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092068

All were tourism=information + information=board but none were in any
way connected to a trail let alone to any other highway=* feature. Often
there wasn't even a tagged route/trail nearby. As such I understand the
hw=trailhead is important to find such trail on the map in the first
place if the trail itself is not or cannot be mapped.

What I don't understand is why the highway tag is used to carry the
information. The way you have mapped the trailheads Peter I would leave
them under some subkey of information, e.g. tourism=information +
information=board + board_type=trailhead.

In the proposal the hw=trailhead is supposed to "be mapped as a node or
a node that is part of a trail segment (i.e.,highway=path) and should be
tagged primarily as highway=trailhead".
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trailhead#Tagging)

As a side note: Looking at the examples I found that you added keys like
wikipedia=nl:Toeristisch Overstappunt
url=https://gpsfietsroutesnederland.nl/toeristische-overstappunten/
website=https://www.natuurpoorten.nl/


These are all generic references that could be added to the OSM wiki
page. On the individual trailheads I would expect a website of the
specific trail.

Regards,

Tobias


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


--
Vr gr Peter Elderson

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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Peter Elderson
Small addition about this remark:

"What I don't understand is why the highway tag is used to carry the 
information. The way you have mapped the trailheads Peter I would leave 
them under some subkey of information, e.g. tourism=information + 
information=board + board_type=trailhead."

Some people say: it's just the start of the route. Some say: it's basically just a parking. Some say: it's basically just a sign, a map or a board.

Well, if it's just one of those then you don't need to tag them as suchthese places combine those things in a marked, designated way, and are operated and published for the purpose, that makes them worth mapping. 

It's the fact that 

Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 00:57 schreef Peter Elderson <[hidden email]>:
Thanks for the comments. Please understand that the mentioned proposal is not my proposal. 

We just kept the idea of a trailhead node marking a place specifically and visibly designated to start one or more hiking routes, bicycle routes, canoe routes, horseriding routes.  Just a crossing or the starting arrow  of a single route has no need for this kind of tagging. Just a map or a board, not a trailhead. Just a parking, not a trailhead. 

In the US many trailheads have been mapped because they are places where you are allowed to access a single trail. The may not even have a name other than "Start of <trail name>" and a location name, but the are listed and offered as designated trailheads.  

These simple trailheads as they have been tagged consist of a node tagged highway=trailhead and usually the name, and someties additional tags. The node may be standalone or may be the first node of the trail or of a branch. The node if standalone may coincide with a board or map or guidepost. 

So my suggestion is exactly that: use a node marked as trailhead, preferably with a name it can be extracted, listed and rendered as being a designated trailhead.

In Nederland we use some further tagging to indicate the modalities and the facilities. The trailheads are specifically designated and designed for transit to routes of all kinds: bicycle en walking routes, roundtrips and networks are standard, free parking space must be available, a special landmark marks them, and there are always some benches; a restaurant or cafe nearby. 

To see the trails starting at one of these places you best look at Nederland on waymarkedtrails. They all have multiple hiking/foot routes and walking routes to hop on, and most support other modalities. 
Pity that the trailheads themselves are not yet rendered and clickable on waymarkedtrails, but we are working on that. 

So tagging becomes more complicated, but the basic function is still the same: search, list and render places specifically designed to get out of the car and start walking, cycling etcetera. 
The node in this use case will always be standalone because of the multimodality and many routes that it serves. 

About the use of referencing tags. I agree this is not yet the best result. Wikipedia links to the dutch page for TOP's (as they are called here), I think that is correct. url links to a site which lists all the official dutch trailheads. website links to the recreational publishing sites of different official operators. Each province has its own operator (and trailhead style).  Some of those have a web page for each trailhead, others have a simple list, others an interactive map or search function... and they reorganise quite often. Permalinks? What? Never heard of...) so we don't link deep but refer to a list/search/map/filter page.

I'm sure the coming years will show what keeps and what not.


Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 23:43 schreef Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]>:
Am 02.01.2019 um 19:42 Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> At the risk of repeating myself:
>
> I think I'd need more concrete examples before I'd support such a
> proposal.

Yes, I second this request.

> If 'trailhead' degenerates into 'any intersection of a trail and a
> highway' (which is what it is in that National Park Service database)
> then it's kind of redundant.

My examples below show they are rather a placeholder for 'any
intersection of a trail and a highway' .

> It appears to me that the Europeans have
> a more specific idea of what a 'trailhead' is - but I don't quite
> understand that idea, and I suspect that's because there are no
> trailheads of that sort near me, despite the fact that I'm within an
> hour's drive of hundreds of hiking trails, including a handful of 'big
> name' long-distance ones.
Please don't generalize. From a German perspective I share your
uneasiness (see my earlier remarks). Funnily, I always had the
impression that in the US you have the more specific idea of what a
trailhead is. :-)


I looked at some of the trailheads in the Netherlands
(http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/EV4):

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092027
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092007
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092068

All were tourism=information + information=board but none were in any
way connected to a trail let alone to any other highway=* feature. Often
there wasn't even a tagged route/trail nearby. As such I understand the
hw=trailhead is important to find such trail on the map in the first
place if the trail itself is not or cannot be mapped.

What I don't understand is why the highway tag is used to carry the
information. The way you have mapped the trailheads Peter I would leave
them under some subkey of information, e.g. tourism=information +
information=board + board_type=trailhead.

In the proposal the hw=trailhead is supposed to "be mapped as a node or
a node that is part of a trail segment (i.e.,highway=path) and should be
tagged primarily as highway=trailhead".
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trailhead#Tagging)

As a side note: Looking at the examples I found that you added keys like
wikipedia=nl:Toeristisch Overstappunt
url=https://gpsfietsroutesnederland.nl/toeristische-overstappunten/
website=https://www.natuurpoorten.nl/


These are all generic references that could be added to the OSM wiki
page. On the individual trailheads I would expect a website of the
specific trail.

Regards,

Tobias


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


--
Vr gr Peter Elderson


--
Vr gr Peter Elderson

_______________________________________________
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 Kevin Kenny-3
I'm not granting tagging rights for trailheads.... if anyone thinks it's worth mapping a place as a trailhead, be my guest!  I know that in the US lots of trailheads have been tagged, I can find many on lists, there are operators of these places keeping lists so others can find and select... so some people think they are worth mapping. 

Same in Nederland, though the population density and the terrrain are very different. And in fact there are lots of sites with lists and maps and details, but none have the quality and completeness that OSM now offers. 

The minimum requirements here are: free parking space, some kind of landmark, at least 2 bicycle routes and two walking routes, and an information board or stand. And waymarks for route directions. 

My requirements are: visibly designated for the purpose, and a name for the trailhead, at least something like "TOP Groenlo" for the TOP in Groenlo where all the routes start. 

Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 00:36 schreef Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>:
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:58 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Designated starting point for multiple routes into a nature area.  There is a designed marking pole or stele, information boards, seats or benches, free parking space nearby.

> The operators are governmental bodies. They publish the lists on recreation websites. Each province has its own list.

What of these are required characteristics, and what are merely usual?
 A lot of trails in the US are operated by non-government volunteer
organizations, and there's no central registry. (Some of these
organizations are more organized than others.)

> Some other examples have been mailed by others, I thought?

Some of the examples were mine, and I thought that you had rejected
them as not being 'trailheads' because of a relative lack of
facilities - typically at most a few parking places, a notice board
and a guidepost.

So, a largish collection from my area, none of which quite meet your criteria:

I would imagine that
http://www.nptrail.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/NPT-Section1.jpg
might qualify, since it has all the above (parking, information kiosk,
seats, and I presume that arch would qualify as a 'marking pole or
stele') - except that it's the jumping-off point for a single long
(220 km) route, not multiple routes.

1. I'd imagine that https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/16998968697
would be pretty marginal, since it's got just a wide compacted spot on
the roadside, with a notice board and register book, and it has no
name. It's very typical of what we'd call trailheads around here,
though. The notice board and register are present at the ones in
wilderness areas, because there's a legal requirement to register when
entering and leaving a wilderness area, and at the ones belonging to
the land conservancies (they use visitor statistics in grant
proposals, and ask that visitors register as a courtesy). For this
particular trail, the operator is a private conservancy, so it's
nongovernmental.

2. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14041171575/ was another
example I gave earlier - the start of two or three trails, but in that
case it's just a hairpin turn on a 4WD road, with enough natural bare
shale to park a few SUV's, and paint-blazed trails leading off. I seem
to recall that one got the answer, 'not a trailhead - having one or
more foot trails heading off into a nature area doesn't make it a
trailhead.' The operator here is indeed the state, and the trailhead
is listed in a state database.

3. I'd imagine that https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/29381789461
would also not be a 'trailhead', because it lacks parking (it's lawful
and reasonably safe to park on the side of the road, but not right
there in the snowplow turn-around), seating, signage, a register, or
anything except for a paint-blazed trail. Still, it's an access point
to a major long-distance (600+ km) trail. The operator is a private
volunteer organization, and the trail there follows easements over
private land. I don't know of a database listing this trailhead,
although it shows up in the trail's guidebook.

4. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/19584241442 is even more
primitive. It's got a compacted verge big enough to park a few
vehicles, and that little sign on the tree says 'TRAIL HEAD PARKING.'
The notice board and register are a few km back on the road, because
that's a grandfathered road in a designated wilderness, and so drivers
have to register on entry. (There's a ranger station at the nearest
entry gate.) The trailhead is state-owned, operated by the Adirondack
Mountain Club, and listed in the state database. There are no
facilities other than the sign and the blazed trail departing.

5. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/10282292144/ lacks parking,
seating, or a notice board. (Again, there's possible roadside parking
not too far away, and I suppose you can sit on the highway guard
rail.) There is a notice board and a register, but because of problems
in the past with vandalism, they're about half a km into the woods
along that access trail. The operator is the state.

6. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/8463648046 has signage, and a
notice board, but only roadside parking and no seating. The access
trail from there is popular enough that the grass is well trodden down
in summer and there is an obvious snowshoe track in winter. The notice
board is disused. The operator is the county, which has no trailhead
database. The county doesn't require visitor registration, so there's
no book.

7. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/28554220940 has an obvious
paint blaze and plastic trail marker. There is only roadside parking.
The notice board is clearly abandoned, and the register book is
nowhere to be found. The operator is the state, but this trailhead is
not in its list. The trailhead, however, does appear in the trail's
guidebook.

The only one with a toilet is the one by the Northville Arch. (There
may be a thunder box[1] somewhere near 4. I didn't look, not being in
need of one just then._

None of these would be in the National Park Service database that
someone thought was a register of all trailheads in the US.

So, what among these qualifies as a 'trailhead'?  All of them are
designated points from which a hike, ski or ride might start. Only one
(the Northville arch) has the full set of facilities that you list,
but it's among the volunteer-maintained ones, and I'm not sure whether
the landowner is the village, or one of the adjacent businesses. I
seem to recall that the arch was erected by the Chamber of Commerce (a
private consortium, as are Chambers of Commerce in general over here).
None of them has all the attributes you mention.

All of these, except for the first, are documented access points to
major trails, hundreds of km long, including the Appalachian Trail,
the Finger Lakes Trail, the New York Long Path, and the
Northville-Placid Trail. They're not local anomalies for minor nature
areas, they're pretty typical of wild-forest or wilderness trailheads.

[1] A thunder box might als be called a "loo with a view."
https://st.depositphotos.com/1518508/3320/i/950/depositphotos_33209389-stock-photo-wilderness-toilet.jpg
is typical. For some reason, I don't seem ever to have photographed
one myself.)

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


--
Vr gr Peter Elderson

_______________________________________________
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 2, 2019 at 7:26 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The minimum requirements here are: free parking space, some kind of landmark, at least 2 bicycle routes and two walking routes, and an information board or stand. And waymarks for route directions.

None of the examples I posted meet all your requirements. Most
trailheads here are served by only short access trails, while the main
trails stay off road, so most trailheads serve either a single route
or else the entire trail network depending on definitions. Moreover,
there are relatively few entry points that serve both walking and
cycling routes. (We have a paucity of MTB routes on the whole.)

The only trailhead that I can think of that I've visited in recent
years that would meet your criteria serves a rather small natural area
and maybe 20 km of trail that's otherwise disconnected from the trail
network (except that the Erie Canalway, a paved
shared-foot-and-cycleway, runs down one side).  And that in turn means
that the Erie Canalway has a trailhead sort of by accident - because
it happens to be right there.

Most of our major national and regional trails simply aren't served by
that sort of facility.  To give the example of one intermediate-scale
trail (220 km) that I've mapped,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4286650, it visits
car-accessible highways fewer than ten times.  Only one has another
trail at the same access point, unless you count the short footways in
the campground at Lake Durant.  The two ends of the trail are in
villages, and one section in the middle has about a 5-km road-walk
through another village. Aside from those and the campground, the
trailheads consist of notice boards and registers at the crossings of
remote mountain roads.  There are two sections that are each over 60
km long that have no road crossings at all.

The two endpoints, as I said, are in villages, and are more
extensively marked; the southern terminus has the arch that I shared
earlier and ends at a village park that has toilets, and is behind a
commercial street that has various businesses. The northern terminus
is at a former railway station that is now a museum, and again has
many businesses close by. Neither terminus is a jumping-off point for
multiple other trails.

This is a trail of extensive regional significance. Not dignifying the
getting-on and getting-off points with the 'trailhead' tag, if we have
a 'trailhead' tag, seems a little parochial. (It'll also invite
further mistagging by us Americans, which will cause further arguments
on this mailing list down the road.)

Our definition would be much simpler: "designated point at which a
hiker, skier, cyclist, rider or snowmobilist gets on and off a
waymarked trail." Usually, but not always, a trailhead will have
dedicated parking (which may or not be free of charge), a notice board
and signage. More elaborate trailheads may have facilities such as
artwork or stelae marking them, seating, rubbish bins, toilets, and
public transportation access, particularly if they are located in
developed parks or campgrounds. Facilities such as these are
considerably rarer in trails that access "back country" or wilderness
areas.

I submit that the additional requirements you enumerate reflect a
European cultural assumption. Europe is much denser than the US. Its
trails are shorter. Its trailheads are closer to civilization, with
facilities to match.

The Adirondack Park, through which
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4286650 runs, is about 24000
km² - an area intermediate in size between Slovenia and Belguim - with
a population density of fewer than 5 inhabitants/km². (The density is
that high because it's a public-private partnership. There are [highly
regulated] settlements and villages inside the park.) It is too sparse
to support the sort of facilities that you have in mind, and there's
no need to run trails to common points of concentration. The trails go
where they go, and many never reach the highway at all, starting and
finishing on other trails. Because of the long distances covered by
the trail network, the trailheads assume greater importance, not less,
despite their lack of facilities. I once sprained a knee about 25 km
from the nearest highway - you can be sure that I was acutely aware of
where the nearest trailhead was, even though it took me a day and a
half to hobble there. Knowing where your alternative exit points are
and how to reach them is an essential part of route planning.

The parks also have a few access points that don't have trails at all,
but are merely parking areas for hikers and climbers who are willing
and able to make their own way cross-country. They have register books
and notice boards, but no trails. I'm not sure what to make of them in
this scheme of things, but can tag the parking area and notice board
at least. (I don't think that any proposal for tagging a register book
ever gained traction.)

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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Peter Elderson
I think your definition is fine. If it's worth listing/searching/displaying the places, then map them, else do not. 

We have these official places called TOPs, the things I listed are necessary to be officially called a TOP (and funded & maintained). They are not requirements for mapping and are not part of my general tagging proposal. If mappers see other hop-on places for trails/routes which do not meet these requirements but are visibly designated/designed for the purpose and worth listing/searching/displaying, fine with me.

In Nederland, mappers have been mapping these places, just not systematically. Now they have all been mapped. 

Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 04:07 schreef Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>:
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 7:26 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The minimum requirements here are: free parking space, some kind of landmark, at least 2 bicycle routes and two walking routes, and an information board or stand. And waymarks for route directions.

None of the examples I posted meet all your requirements. Most
trailheads here are served by only short access trails, while the main
trails stay off road, so most trailheads serve either a single route
or else the entire trail network depending on definitions. Moreover,
there are relatively few entry points that serve both walking and
cycling routes. (We have a paucity of MTB routes on the whole.)

The only trailhead that I can think of that I've visited in recent
years that would meet your criteria serves a rather small natural area
and maybe 20 km of trail that's otherwise disconnected from the trail
network (except that the Erie Canalway, a paved
shared-foot-and-cycleway, runs down one side).  And that in turn means
that the Erie Canalway has a trailhead sort of by accident - because
it happens to be right there.

Most of our major national and regional trails simply aren't served by
that sort of facility.  To give the example of one intermediate-scale
trail (220 km) that I've mapped,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4286650, it visits
car-accessible highways fewer than ten times.  Only one has another
trail at the same access point, unless you count the short footways in
the campground at Lake Durant.  The two ends of the trail are in
villages, and one section in the middle has about a 5-km road-walk
through another village. Aside from those and the campground, the
trailheads consist of notice boards and registers at the crossings of
remote mountain roads.  There are two sections that are each over 60
km long that have no road crossings at all.

The two endpoints, as I said, are in villages, and are more
extensively marked; the southern terminus has the arch that I shared
earlier and ends at a village park that has toilets, and is behind a
commercial street that has various businesses. The northern terminus
is at a former railway station that is now a museum, and again has
many businesses close by. Neither terminus is a jumping-off point for
multiple other trails.

This is a trail of extensive regional significance. Not dignifying the
getting-on and getting-off points with the 'trailhead' tag, if we have
a 'trailhead' tag, seems a little parochial. (It'll also invite
further mistagging by us Americans, which will cause further arguments
on this mailing list down the road.)

Our definition would be much simpler: "designated point at which a
hiker, skier, cyclist, rider or snowmobilist gets on and off a
waymarked trail." Usually, but not always, a trailhead will have
dedicated parking (which may or not be free of charge), a notice board
and signage. More elaborate trailheads may have facilities such as
artwork or stelae marking them, seating, rubbish bins, toilets, and
public transportation access, particularly if they are located in
developed parks or campgrounds. Facilities such as these are
considerably rarer in trails that access "back country" or wilderness
areas.

I submit that the additional requirements you enumerate reflect a
European cultural assumption. Europe is much denser than the US. Its
trails are shorter. Its trailheads are closer to civilization, with
facilities to match.

The Adirondack Park, through which
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4286650 runs, is about 24000
km² - an area intermediate in size between Slovenia and Belguim - with
a population density of fewer than 5 inhabitants/km². (The density is
that high because it's a public-private partnership. There are [highly
regulated] settlements and villages inside the park.) It is too sparse
to support the sort of facilities that you have in mind, and there's
no need to run trails to common points of concentration. The trails go
where they go, and many never reach the highway at all, starting and
finishing on other trails. Because of the long distances covered by
the trail network, the trailheads assume greater importance, not less,
despite their lack of facilities. I once sprained a knee about 25 km
from the nearest highway - you can be sure that I was acutely aware of
where the nearest trailhead was, even though it took me a day and a
half to hobble there. Knowing where your alternative exit points are
and how to reach them is an essential part of route planning.

The parks also have a few access points that don't have trails at all,
but are merely parking areas for hikers and climbers who are willing
and able to make their own way cross-country. They have register books
and notice boards, but no trails. I'm not sure what to make of them in
this scheme of things, but can tag the parking area and notice board
at least. (I don't think that any proposal for tagging a register book
ever gained traction.)

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


--
Vr gr Peter Elderson

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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Mark Wagner
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 20:57:04 +0100
Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Copying from an earlier response: Designated starting point for
> multiple routes into a nature area.  There is a designed marking pole
> or stele, information boards, seats or benches, free parking space
> nearby. This one is in a small village:
> https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.4336993,6.834158,3a,75y,191.07h,84.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sby0P5NTeyqR3fyrgDNqCOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>
> Here is another one, with emphasis on Parking. On the left behind the
> parking is the actual access point to the trails.
> https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.6284198,5.0889629,3a,76.4y,32.53h,96.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy3HdYWJ2zZ1rw1ozqJyrXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>
> The operators are governmental bodies. They publish the lists on
> recreation websites. Each province has its own list. VVV of course
> lists/presents them as well.
>
> These points are designed for trail access.
>

There's a definite disconnect in definitions here.

Looking at "Nationaal Park De Loonse en Drunense Duinen", there are
nearly a dozen places that that I would probably call trailheads:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63153/5.06300
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65683/5.07140
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65623/5.08233
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.66740/5.08273
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.67192/5.07931
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.66658/5.14424
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65640/5.15269
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63970/5.14803
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63535/5.11149
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63125/5.09456
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.62901/5.08933

only two of which appear to be designated as such.  I also found
about as many locations where I'd expect to find a trailhead, informal
or otherwise.

Compare to the main section of Riverside State Park, a park in the
western United States of comparable size and urban-ness, with nine named
trailheads and about a dozen unnamed ones:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/47.7429/-117.5226

None of them meets the Netherlands definition of a trailhead.   Sontag
Park trailhead probably comes the closest, lacking only a marking
pole/stele.  The rest are paid parking, and most of them lack benches
and information boards as well as markers.

(Incidentally, if you insist on "starting point" rather than "access
point", only two of them are trailheads: Nine Mile, the starting point
for the Spokane Centennial Trail, and the equestrian-area trailhead,
starting point for 25-Mile Trail.)

--
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
Please note that the description of official TOPs in Nederland is not intended as a limitative requirement for trailheads around the globe. 

If we would mark every access point to a route as a trailhead,  Nederland would be covered with trailheads, and nobody would have any use for the information. So we limit it to these specially designed "official" transit places. These can be usefully listed, searched, and presented based on the OSM data. Other countries may differ in what's useful, thats fine.
 And that's why the idea is just to mark a node as highway=trailhead and (usually) a name.  

About the name: it's common to list places with names. The operator must have some kind of name or reference. Even when there is no special name on a sign, you still need to describe the thing, maybe using the name of the trail and which end (north, or a town name, road name, or..).  Or name of the park and numbered acces points, something.
If there really is nothing of the sort, and the place is still deemed as useful to map, fine. Could still be useful to display them on a POI map or hiking map, but search by name is then impossible. 



Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 09:23 schreef Mark Wagner <[hidden email]>:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 20:57:04 +0100
Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Copying from an earlier response: Designated starting point for
> multiple routes into a nature area.  There is a designed marking pole
> or stele, information boards, seats or benches, free parking space
> nearby. This one is in a small village:
> https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.4336993,6.834158,3a,75y,191.07h,84.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sby0P5NTeyqR3fyrgDNqCOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>
> Here is another one, with emphasis on Parking. On the left behind the
> parking is the actual access point to the trails.
> https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.6284198,5.0889629,3a,76.4y,32.53h,96.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy3HdYWJ2zZ1rw1ozqJyrXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>
> The operators are governmental bodies. They publish the lists on
> recreation websites. Each province has its own list. VVV of course
> lists/presents them as well.
>
> These points are designed for trail access.
>

There's a definite disconnect in definitions here.

Looking at "Nationaal Park De Loonse en Drunense Duinen", there are
nearly a dozen places that that I would probably call trailheads:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63153/5.06300
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65683/5.07140
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65623/5.08233
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.66740/5.08273
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.67192/5.07931
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.66658/5.14424
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65640/5.15269
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63970/5.14803
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63535/5.11149
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63125/5.09456
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.62901/5.08933

only two of which appear to be designated as such.  I also found
about as many locations where I'd expect to find a trailhead, informal
or otherwise.

Compare to the main section of Riverside State Park, a park in the
western United States of comparable size and urban-ness, with nine named
trailheads and about a dozen unnamed ones:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/47.7429/-117.5226

None of them meets the Netherlands definition of a trailhead.   Sontag
Park trailhead probably comes the closest, lacking only a marking
pole/stele.  The rest are paid parking, and most of them lack benches
and information boards as well as markers.

(Incidentally, if you insist on "starting point" rather than "access
point", only two of them are trailheads: Nine Mile, the starting point
for the Spokane Centennial Trail, and the equestrian-area trailhead,
starting point for 25-Mile Trail.)

--
Mark


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


--
Vr gr Peter Elderson

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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Marc Gemis
I wonder why it is under "highway", it seems more related to "tourism"
/ "information".

Another problem I see is that there is no other definition for
trailheads in The Netherlands than "location being picked by the
tourist agency as trailhead" or better "location being designated by
the tourist agency as TOP"
It seems to me that any other definition means that one has to map
many more places in The Netherlands as trailhead or that some of the
"picked by tourist agency" are not a trailhead.

Given that the Dutch community has a very specific definition of
trailhead, I wonder whether this can  be solved by a dedicated tag
(tourism=top) or subtag (tourism=information;information=top) ? The
benefit would be to avoid confusion with a more general definition of
trailheads (whatever that might be).

m.

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 10:21 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Please note that the description of official TOPs in Nederland is not intended as a limitative requirement for trailheads around the globe.
>
> If we would mark every access point to a route as a trailhead,  Nederland would be covered with trailheads, and nobody would have any use for the information. So we limit it to these specially designed "official" transit places. These can be usefully listed, searched, and presented based on the OSM data. Other countries may differ in what's useful, thats fine.
>  And that's why the idea is just to mark a node as highway=trailhead and (usually) a name.
>
> About the name: it's common to list places with names. The operator must have some kind of name or reference. Even when there is no special name on a sign, you still need to describe the thing, maybe using the name of the trail and which end (north, or a town name, road name, or..).  Or name of the park and numbered acces points, something.
> If there really is nothing of the sort, and the place is still deemed as useful to map, fine. Could still be useful to display them on a POI map or hiking map, but search by name is then impossible.
>
>
>
> Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 09:23 schreef Mark Wagner <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 20:57:04 +0100
>> Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Copying from an earlier response: Designated starting point for
>> > multiple routes into a nature area.  There is a designed marking pole
>> > or stele, information boards, seats or benches, free parking space
>> > nearby. This one is in a small village:
>> > https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.4336993,6.834158,3a,75y,191.07h,84.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sby0P5NTeyqR3fyrgDNqCOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>> >
>> > Here is another one, with emphasis on Parking. On the left behind the
>> > parking is the actual access point to the trails.
>> > https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.6284198,5.0889629,3a,76.4y,32.53h,96.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy3HdYWJ2zZ1rw1ozqJyrXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>> >
>> > The operators are governmental bodies. They publish the lists on
>> > recreation websites. Each province has its own list. VVV of course
>> > lists/presents them as well.
>> >
>> > These points are designed for trail access.
>> >
>>
>> There's a definite disconnect in definitions here.
>>
>> Looking at "Nationaal Park De Loonse en Drunense Duinen", there are
>> nearly a dozen places that that I would probably call trailheads:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63153/5.06300
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65683/5.07140
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65623/5.08233
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.66740/5.08273
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.67192/5.07931
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.66658/5.14424
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65640/5.15269
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63970/5.14803
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63535/5.11149
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63125/5.09456
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.62901/5.08933
>>
>> only two of which appear to be designated as such.  I also found
>> about as many locations where I'd expect to find a trailhead, informal
>> or otherwise.
>>
>> Compare to the main section of Riverside State Park, a park in the
>> western United States of comparable size and urban-ness, with nine named
>> trailheads and about a dozen unnamed ones:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/47.7429/-117.5226
>>
>> None of them meets the Netherlands definition of a trailhead.   Sontag
>> Park trailhead probably comes the closest, lacking only a marking
>> pole/stele.  The rest are paid parking, and most of them lack benches
>> and information boards as well as markers.
>>
>> (Incidentally, if you insist on "starting point" rather than "access
>> point", only two of them are trailheads: Nine Mile, the starting point
>> for the Spokane Centennial Trail, and the equestrian-area trailhead,
>> starting point for 25-Mile Trail.)
>>
>> --
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> _______________________________________________
> 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


Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 13:22 schreef Marc Gemis <[hidden email]>:
I wonder why it is under "highway", it seems more related to "tourism"
/ "information".


Overpass shows most usage is in the US, Canada and Japan, now also Nederland, and some in Italy.

highway can be applied to nodes and ways, and it compares nicely to highway=bus_stop. A trailhead is then seen as a "trail stop" for trail "passengers".  I think that's why it was chosen in the trailhead proposal. I saw no compelling reason to change that, even though I can see your argument to use tourism=. 

Advantage of highway= is that you can still add the tourism= key for an information board if it coincides with the trailhead. 

Do you see an actual problem with this usage?
 
Another problem I see is that there is no other definition for
trailheads in The Netherlands than "location being picked by the
tourist agency as trailhead" or better "location being designated by
the tourist agency as TOP"
It seems to me that any other definition means that one has to map
many more places in The Netherlands as trailhead or that some of the
"picked by tourist agency" are not a trailhead.

Lots of places give access to trails, of course. But if they are not visibly designated/designed and operated (not just picked!), I would not map those places as trailheads. No one has to do that. On the other hand, in other countries useers may see fit to map those kind of locations as trailheads, because they want to search/list them and see them on a map. 

Given that the Dutch community has a very specific definition of
trailhead, I wonder whether this can  be solved by a dedicated tag
(tourism=top) or subtag (tourism=information;information=top) ? The
benefit would be to avoid confusion with a more general definition of
trailheads (whatever that might be).

I fear that this would cause more confusion than it solves! I would like not to go principle and exact definition about this, and just take the practical approach: If a place fits the very general description I suggested, then if a mapper sees fit, (s)he may use the trailhead tag. I'm sure the local/regional community will moderate if necessary, to ensure the tagging fits their situation.
 

m.

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 10:21 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Please note that the description of official TOPs in Nederland is not intended as a limitative requirement for trailheads around the globe.
>
> If we would mark every access point to a route as a trailhead,  Nederland would be covered with trailheads, and nobody would have any use for the information. So we limit it to these specially designed "official" transit places. These can be usefully listed, searched, and presented based on the OSM data. Other countries may differ in what's useful, thats fine.
>  And that's why the idea is just to mark a node as highway=trailhead and (usually) a name.
>
> About the name: it's common to list places with names. The operator must have some kind of name or reference. Even when there is no special name on a sign, you still need to describe the thing, maybe using the name of the trail and which end (north, or a town name, road name, or..).  Or name of the park and numbered acces points, something.
> If there really is nothing of the sort, and the place is still deemed as useful to map, fine. Could still be useful to display them on a POI map or hiking map, but search by name is then impossible.
>
>
>
> Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 09:23 schreef Mark Wagner <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 20:57:04 +0100
>> Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Copying from an earlier response: Designated starting point for
>> > multiple routes into a nature area.  There is a designed marking pole
>> > or stele, information boards, seats or benches, free parking space
>> > nearby. This one is in a small village:
>> > https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.4336993,6.834158,3a,75y,191.07h,84.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sby0P5NTeyqR3fyrgDNqCOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>> >
>> > Here is another one, with emphasis on Parking. On the left behind the
>> > parking is the actual access point to the trails.
>> > https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.6284198,5.0889629,3a,76.4y,32.53h,96.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy3HdYWJ2zZ1rw1ozqJyrXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>> >
>> > The operators are governmental bodies. They publish the lists on
>> > recreation websites. Each province has its own list. VVV of course
>> > lists/presents them as well.
>> >
>> > These points are designed for trail access.
>> >
>>
>> There's a definite disconnect in definitions here.
>>
>> Looking at "Nationaal Park De Loonse en Drunense Duinen", there are
>> nearly a dozen places that that I would probably call trailheads:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63153/5.06300
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65683/5.07140
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65623/5.08233
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.66740/5.08273
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.67192/5.07931
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.66658/5.14424
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65640/5.15269
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63970/5.14803
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63535/5.11149
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63125/5.09456
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.62901/5.08933
>>
>> only two of which appear to be designated as such.  I also found
>> about as many locations where I'd expect to find a trailhead, informal
>> or otherwise.
>>
>> Compare to the main section of Riverside State Park, a park in the
>> western United States of comparable size and urban-ness, with nine named
>> trailheads and about a dozen unnamed ones:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/47.7429/-117.5226
>>
>> None of them meets the Netherlands definition of a trailhead.   Sontag
>> Park trailhead probably comes the closest, lacking only a marking
>> pole/stele.  The rest are paid parking, and most of them lack benches
>> and information boards as well as markers.
>>
>> (Incidentally, if you insist on "starting point" rather than "access
>> point", only two of them are trailheads: Nine Mile, the starting point
>> for the Spokane Centennial Trail, and the equestrian-area trailhead,
>> starting point for 25-Mile Trail.)
>>
>> --
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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


--
Vr gr Peter Elderson

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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Marc Gemis
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 13:22 schreef Marc Gemis <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> I wonder why it is under "highway", it seems more related to "tourism"
>> / "information".
>
>
> Current usage: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=trailhead
>
> Overpass shows most usage is in the US, Canada and Japan, now also Nederland, and some in Italy.
>
> highway can be applied to nodes and ways, and it compares nicely to highway=bus_stop. A trailhead is then seen as a "trail stop" for trail "passengers".  I think that's why it was chosen in the trailhead proposal. I saw no compelling reason to change that, even though I can see your argument to use tourism=.
>
> Advantage of highway= is that you can still add the tourism= key for an information board if it coincides with the trailhead.
>
> Do you see an actual problem with this usage?

since the "key" is not really that important IMHO, I'm fine with "highway"

>> Another problem I see is that there is no other definition for
>>
>> trailheads in The Netherlands than "location being picked by the
>> tourist agency as trailhead" or better "location being designated by
>> the tourist agency as TOP"
>> It seems to me that any other definition means that one has to map
>> many more places in The Netherlands as trailhead or that some of the
>> "picked by tourist agency" are not a trailhead.
>
>
> Lots of places give access to trails, of course. But if they are not visibly designated/designed and operated (not just picked!), I would not map those places as trailheads. No one has to do that. On the other hand, in other countries useers may see fit to map those kind of locations as trailheads, because they want to search/list them and see them on a map.

I am not convinced that your definition of trailhead as a placed
selected by the tourist agency for their "TOP" list of places is
compatible with the attempts you and others made to define trailhead.
If it's incompatible because you require less or other characteristics
I see that as a problem.
And what if someone maps those trailhead-like places that you do not
consider as trailheads ? Is your list broken ?

Extra question:
How do you determine the facilities of a trailhead if that is mapped
as a point ? Does one have to do a "in the neighborhood of" query ? Or
would it be better to map the trailhead as an area or site-relation to
explicitly map what belongs to the trailhead and what not ?

m.

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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Peter Elderson
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 that's in place, rendering on much used maps and usage for applications/websites is possible. I think it's useful and will promote it as the next step, but it's up to the renderers and data users to decide. 

Once that has been achieved, we can discuss expanding to include trailhead areas, trailhead site relations to show which facilities, amenities and route types the trailhead sports, etcetera. I think the defintions thing will play a heavy role there... looking forward to it, because that's much more interesting than minimal tagging. Could be that the Dutch trailheads would have to be re-defined and retagged as sites of type trailhead or TOP or whatever: if that is the consensus outcome, I will gladly do that for this country. I'm a hikerbikertrailliker, so it's sort of my thing.

That's how I think to move this thing forward. If we start with the in depth discussion of all aspects, nothing's gonna happen.


Op vr 4 jan. 2019 om 13:55 schreef Marc Gemis <[hidden email]>:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 13:22 schreef Marc Gemis <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> I wonder why it is under "highway", it seems more related to "tourism"
>> / "information".
>
>
> Current usage: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=trailhead
>
> Overpass shows most usage is in the US, Canada and Japan, now also Nederland, and some in Italy.
>
> highway can be applied to nodes and ways, and it compares nicely to highway=bus_stop. A trailhead is then seen as a "trail stop" for trail "passengers".  I think that's why it was chosen in the trailhead proposal. I saw no compelling reason to change that, even though I can see your argument to use tourism=.
>
> Advantage of highway= is that you can still add the tourism= key for an information board if it coincides with the trailhead.
>
> Do you see an actual problem with this usage?

since the "key" is not really that important IMHO, I'm fine with "highway"

>> Another problem I see is that there is no other definition for
>>
>> trailheads in The Netherlands than "location being picked by the
>> tourist agency as trailhead" or better "location being designated by
>> the tourist agency as TOP"
>> It seems to me that any other definition means that one has to map
>> many more places in The Netherlands as trailhead or that some of the
>> "picked by tourist agency" are not a trailhead.
>
>
> Lots of places give access to trails, of course. But if they are not visibly designated/designed and operated (not just picked!), I would not map those places as trailheads. No one has to do that. On the other hand, in other countries useers may see fit to map those kind of locations as trailheads, because they want to search/list them and see them on a map.

I am not convinced that your definition of trailhead as a placed
selected by the tourist agency for their "TOP" list of places is
compatible with the attempts you and others made to define trailhead.
If it's incompatible because you require less or other characteristics
I see that as a problem.
And what if someone maps those trailhead-like places that you do not
consider as trailheads ? Is your list broken ?

Extra question:
How do you determine the facilities of a trailhead if that is mapped
as a point ? Does one have to do a "in the neighborhood of" query ? Or
would it be better to map the trailhead as an area or site-relation to
explicitly map what belongs to the trailhead and what not ?

m.

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


--
Vr gr Peter Elderson

_______________________________________________
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 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> 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. We can add indications
in the Wiki discussion that the decision of what is a trailhead can be
informed by the presence of public parking (whether free or paid is a
local custom), guideposts, notice boards, registers, seating, toilets,
and similar facilities in locales where such things are required or
customary. In a wilderness area, a trailhead may simply be a path
going off into the forest from a road, and enough space on the
roadside to park a few cars. In a developed park, a trailhead may be
an elaborate site such as the Dutch apparently enjoy. But the key
definition is: it's where you start or end your trip on the trail.

Note that I did not say that it's where the trail starts or ends. A
long trail may have a great many trailheads. Millions of people take
trips on the Appalachian Trail each year. Only a few hundred traverse
it from end to end. When I submitted my trip log from the much less
popular Northville-Placid Trail, I was one of only a couple of
thousand registered 'end-to-enders' in the nearly hundred years of the
trail's existence. So it's not 'where the trail starts or ends," it's
"a customary or designated place to get on or get off."

 What gave me trouble was the original specification, which you were
defending vigourously until quite recently. It had so many exclusions
(must have a stela, must have seating, must have free parking, must
serve multiple trails, and indeed was restricted to trailheads that
simultaneously served foot- and cycleways) that it effectively
excluded nearly everything that I would consider to be a 'trailhead'.
Even as revised, it was a locale-specific definition that would not
have been useful to me at all.

_______________________________________________
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
Sorry where I said Japan I was wrong, it's actually Taiwan and Philippines. 

Op vr 4 jan. 2019 om 13:08 schreef Peter Elderson <[hidden email]>:


Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 13:22 schreef Marc Gemis <[hidden email]>:
I wonder why it is under "highway", it seems more related to "tourism"
/ "information".


Overpass shows most usage is in the US, Canada and Japan, now also Nederland, and some in Italy.

highway can be applied to nodes and ways, and it compares nicely to highway=bus_stop. A trailhead is then seen as a "trail stop" for trail "passengers".  I think that's why it was chosen in the trailhead proposal. I saw no compelling reason to change that, even though I can see your argument to use tourism=. 

Advantage of highway= is that you can still add the tourism= key for an information board if it coincides with the trailhead. 

Do you see an actual problem with this usage?
 
Another problem I see is that there is no other definition for
trailheads in The Netherlands than "location being picked by the
tourist agency as trailhead" or better "location being designated by
the tourist agency as TOP"
It seems to me that any other definition means that one has to map
many more places in The Netherlands as trailhead or that some of the
"picked by tourist agency" are not a trailhead.

Lots of places give access to trails, of course. But if they are not visibly designated/designed and operated (not just picked!), I would not map those places as trailheads. No one has to do that. On the other hand, in other countries useers may see fit to map those kind of locations as trailheads, because they want to search/list them and see them on a map. 

Given that the Dutch community has a very specific definition of
trailhead, I wonder whether this can  be solved by a dedicated tag
(tourism=top) or subtag (tourism=information;information=top) ? The
benefit would be to avoid confusion with a more general definition of
trailheads (whatever that might be).

I fear that this would cause more confusion than it solves! I would like not to go principle and exact definition about this, and just take the practical approach: If a place fits the very general description I suggested, then if a mapper sees fit, (s)he may use the trailhead tag. I'm sure the local/regional community will moderate if necessary, to ensure the tagging fits their situation.
 

m.

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 10:21 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Please note that the description of official TOPs in Nederland is not intended as a limitative requirement for trailheads around the globe.
>
> If we would mark every access point to a route as a trailhead,  Nederland would be covered with trailheads, and nobody would have any use for the information. So we limit it to these specially designed "official" transit places. These can be usefully listed, searched, and presented based on the OSM data. Other countries may differ in what's useful, thats fine.
>  And that's why the idea is just to mark a node as highway=trailhead and (usually) a name.
>
> About the name: it's common to list places with names. The operator must have some kind of name or reference. Even when there is no special name on a sign, you still need to describe the thing, maybe using the name of the trail and which end (north, or a town name, road name, or..).  Or name of the park and numbered acces points, something.
> If there really is nothing of the sort, and the place is still deemed as useful to map, fine. Could still be useful to display them on a POI map or hiking map, but search by name is then impossible.
>
>
>
> Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 09:23 schreef Mark Wagner <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 20:57:04 +0100
>> Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Copying from an earlier response: Designated starting point for
>> > multiple routes into a nature area.  There is a designed marking pole
>> > or stele, information boards, seats or benches, free parking space
>> > nearby. This one is in a small village:
>> > https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.4336993,6.834158,3a,75y,191.07h,84.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sby0P5NTeyqR3fyrgDNqCOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>> >
>> > Here is another one, with emphasis on Parking. On the left behind the
>> > parking is the actual access point to the trails.
>> > https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.6284198,5.0889629,3a,76.4y,32.53h,96.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy3HdYWJ2zZ1rw1ozqJyrXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
>> >
>> > The operators are governmental bodies. They publish the lists on
>> > recreation websites. Each province has its own list. VVV of course
>> > lists/presents them as well.
>> >
>> > These points are designed for trail access.
>> >
>>
>> There's a definite disconnect in definitions here.
>>
>> Looking at "Nationaal Park De Loonse en Drunense Duinen", there are
>> nearly a dozen places that that I would probably call trailheads:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63153/5.06300
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65683/5.07140
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65623/5.08233
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.66740/5.08273
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.67192/5.07931
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.66658/5.14424
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.65640/5.15269
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63970/5.14803
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63535/5.11149
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63125/5.09456
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.62901/5.08933
>>
>> only two of which appear to be designated as such.  I also found
>> about as many locations where I'd expect to find a trailhead, informal
>> or otherwise.
>>
>> Compare to the main section of Riverside State Park, a park in the
>> western United States of comparable size and urban-ness, with nine named
>> trailheads and about a dozen unnamed ones:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/47.7429/-117.5226
>>
>> None of them meets the Netherlands definition of a trailhead.   Sontag
>> Park trailhead probably comes the closest, lacking only a marking
>> pole/stele.  The rest are paid parking, and most of them lack benches
>> and information boards as well as markers.
>>
>> (Incidentally, if you insist on "starting point" rather than "access
>> point", only two of them are trailheads: Nine Mile, the starting point
>> for the Spokane Centennial Trail, and the equestrian-area trailhead,
>> starting point for 25-Mile Trail.)
>>
>> --
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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


--
Vr gr Peter Elderson


--
Vr gr Peter Elderson

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
123456