Trailhead tagging

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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Peter Elderson
Let's agree to agree!

Op vr 4 jan. 2019 om 16:52 schreef Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>:
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


--
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
Am 04.01.2019 um 18:18 schrieb Peter Elderson:
Let's agree to agree!

Op vr 4 jan. 2019 om 16:52 schreef Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>:
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.

I'm perfectly fine with this. Now an open question is still where to place this tag and how to combine it. The stalled hw=trailhead proposal specifically suggests to place a trailhead node alone or on a piece of highway: "A trailhead should be mapped as a node or a node that is part of a trail segment (i.e.,highway=path) and should be tagged primarily as highway=trailhead." At least I would rephrase that to something along "... or a node that is part of the trail segment or a highway leading to its trail(s)."

More problematic is the question of combination. I'm pretty much opposed to giving this object two top level keys: highway=trailhead and tourism=information. I think the thought of the  old proposal was to mark the point on a trail where to access it, hence hw=. Peter was more going in the direction of marking the point where we find information on how to access the trail (name, information board, sign, stele, ...), hence tourism=information + information=.

I would still try to separate the elements. We leave it with hw=trailhead + possibly a name + possibly including it in the route relation for the actual access point. Additionally, we map the amenities: information board, parking, toilets, picknick site etc. I'd welcome introducing something like tourism=information + information=trailhead or tourism=information + information=board + board_type=trailhead. Since a trailhead could be marked by other objects than a board the former might be more universal.

For the dutch case that would mean removing the hw=trailhead from all the points and changing the tourism=... to something new we agree on.

Tobias


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[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 Peter Elderson
Am 03.01.2019 um 00:57 schrieb Peter Elderson:
> Thanks for the comments. Please understand that the mentioned proposal
> is not my proposal.
>
You were referring to it and in my opinion you tried to tweak it a bit
too much for your purposes. But let's continue this on the other
sub-thread. :-)

>
> 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.

I had looked at a few examples also on waymarkedtrails and often found
no real trails nearby. e.g.:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092007#map=16/52.3836/5.6325
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=16!52.3836!5.6325

or

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092027/#map=15/51.4414/5.8639
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=15!51.4414!5.8648 
(knooppuntennetwerk close by but not a named trail)

The latter TOP is named "Natuurpoort De Peel". So I was wondering are
these realy trailheads (in the sense of you can access some or several
trails here) or are these just designated general recreation spots?

Tobias

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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Peter Elderson
Haha, of course you can find some questionnable examples! The forst is a very new TOP, they put it in place before the expected route changes. There are some local routes and horse trails,  which are not recorded in OSM,  and it's part of the cycling node network. Cycling routre LF9 is there. And access to watersports, though I wouldn't call that a "trail" unless there are markings to follow by boat. (Other places do have canoe/rowing trails, but I haven't seen those on this particular location.)

The "Natuurpoort" ('nature gate') is a different series from the TOPs. It has no formal requirement as to hiking/cycling trails, but gives access to areas we consider to be nature. The routes through the area start or pass through this location. These include hiking trails, local trails, cycling routes, horse routes, and sometimes other routes. Many of those are not recorded in OSM, and there is no guarantee that any OSM route passes through there. 

The example you give is close to the cycling and hiking node networks. It also serves the regional trail "Hertogenpad". 

So both locations are actually there, including stele, information boards and guideposts, and designed/designated and named for the purpose of accessing various routes and trails.

If someone made a POI map or POI list for hikers and maybe a router app for hikers, you would want these locations showed/listed/routed as well. 


Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 12:36 schreef Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]>:
Am 03.01.2019 um 00:57 schrieb Peter Elderson:
> Thanks for the comments. Please understand that the mentioned proposal
> is not my proposal.
>
You were referring to it and in my opinion you tried to tweak it a bit
too much for your purposes. But let's continue this on the other
sub-thread. :-)

>
> 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.

I had looked at a few examples also on waymarkedtrails and often found
no real trails nearby. e.g.:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092007#map=16/52.3836/5.6325
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=16!52.3836!5.6325

or

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092027/#map=15/51.4414/5.8639
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=15!51.4414!5.8648
(knooppuntennetwerk close by but not a named trail)

The latter TOP is named "Natuurpoort De Peel". So I was wondering are
these realy trailheads (in the sense of you can access some or several
trails here) or are these just designated general recreation spots?

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
In reply to this post by Tobias Wrede

Shows Natuurpoort De Peel. You see the brown oversized key which landmarks the Natuurpoort series. You see an information board, with routing poles, seats, and a place to get refreshments. The name is a separate board. Their is parking space. The information baord and guideposts direct the users to the routes, including the named hiking trail Hertogenpad.

Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 12:36 schreef Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]>:
Am 03.01.2019 um 00:57 schrieb Peter Elderson:
> Thanks for the comments. Please understand that the mentioned proposal
> is not my proposal.
>
You were referring to it and in my opinion you tried to tweak it a bit
too much for your purposes. But let's continue this on the other
sub-thread. :-)

>
> 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.

I had looked at a few examples also on waymarkedtrails and often found
no real trails nearby. e.g.:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092007#map=16/52.3836/5.6325
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=16!52.3836!5.6325

or

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092027/#map=15/51.4414/5.8639
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=15!51.4414!5.8648
(knooppuntennetwerk close by but not a named trail)

The latter TOP is named "Natuurpoort De Peel". So I was wondering are
these realy trailheads (in the sense of you can access some or several
trails here) or are these just designated general recreation spots?

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
In reply to this post by Tobias Wrede
I can see your argument. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Select by tag works (overpass shows that): check

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

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



Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 12:23 schreef Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]>:
Am 04.01.2019 um 18:18 schrieb Peter Elderson:
Let's agree to agree!

Op vr 4 jan. 2019 om 16:52 schreef Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>:
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.

I'm perfectly fine with this. Now an open question is still where to place this tag and how to combine it. The stalled hw=trailhead proposal specifically suggests to place a trailhead node alone or on a piece of highway: "A trailhead should be mapped as a node or a node that is part of a trail segment (i.e.,highway=path) and should be tagged primarily as highway=trailhead." At least I would rephrase that to something along "... or a node that is part of the trail segment or a highway leading to its trail(s)."

More problematic is the question of combination. I'm pretty much opposed to giving this object two top level keys: highway=trailhead and tourism=information. I think the thought of the  old proposal was to mark the point on a trail where to access it, hence hw=. Peter was more going in the direction of marking the point where we find information on how to access the trail (name, information board, sign, stele, ...), hence tourism=information + information=.

I would still try to separate the elements. We leave it with hw=trailhead + possibly a name + possibly including it in the route relation for the actual access point. Additionally, we map the amenities: information board, parking, toilets, picknick site etc. I'd welcome introducing something like tourism=information + information=trailhead or tourism=information + information=board + board_type=trailhead. Since a trailhead could be marked by other objects than a board the former might be more universal.

For the dutch case that would mean removing the hw=trailhead from all the points and changing the tourism=... to something new we agree on.

Tobias

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[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
Am 05.01.2019 um 20:57 schrieb Peter Elderson:
I can see your argument. 

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

First of all I think this mixes two distinct features into one as I described before: 1) the actual trail access, i. e. a point on the trail or a highway section leading to it and 2) the information infrastructure (information board, stele, you name it).


Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 12:23 schreef Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]>:
I think the thought of the  old proposal was to mark the point on a trail where to access it, hence hw=. Peter was more going in the direction of marking the point where we find information on how to access the trail (name, information board, sign, stele, ...), hence tourism=information + information=.

I think we should stick to the good old OSM rule "one feature - one OSM element" (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element). Obviously, the highway access and the information can be very close by, but pointing again at the TOP examples I mentioned before it's not always the case. So I am really in favor in separating them.

Secondly, combining those makes it difficult for data consumers. Unless they explicitly search for the combination of highway=trailhead and tourism=information and treating the node separately, they might run into problems. A renderer could for example display all information boards on the map. But they might handle all highway elements before in their processing chain and hence ignore the second top level key tourism all together. In the end we would neither see the highway=trailhead nor the information=board on the map.

Tobias


_______________________________________________
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 Peter Elderson
Am 03.01.2019 um 00:57 schrieb Peter Elderson:

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.



Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 23:43 schreef Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]>:

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.

Would you add https://www.government.nl/topics/primary-education to all amenity=school in the Netherlands? Or  wikipiedia=nl:Lijst_van_hogeronderwijsinstellingen_in_Nederland for all amenity=university? Or wikipedia=nl:Lijst_van_rivieren_in_Nederland to all the rivers? Or even wikipedia=nl:Rivier?

I think the Wikipedia and website links should be very specific to the individual object and not replace a dictionary.

Tobias


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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Graeme Fitzpatrick

On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 at 21:15, Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]> wrote:
Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 23:43 schreef Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]>:

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.

I think the Wikipedia and website links should be very specific to the individual object and not replace a dictionary.


I can see the advantages of listing both general & specific info.

Examples in our area:

General info about Lamington National Park https://parks.des.qld.gov.au/parks/lamington/


Thanks

Graeme 

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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Marc Gemis
But are you adding
https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/conservation-and-heritage/national-parks/australias-national-parks
to all national parks  (because that is what Peter's link is doing).

On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 8:49 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 at 21:15, Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 23:43 schreef Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I think the Wikipedia and website links should be very specific to the individual object and not replace a dictionary.
>
>
> I can see the advantages of listing both general & specific info.
>
> Examples in our area:
>
> General info about Lamington National Park https://parks.des.qld.gov.au/parks/lamington/
>
> Specifics about the individual walking tracks https://www.binnaburralodge.com.au/activities/bushwalking-hiking & https://oreillys.com.au/walking-tracks-at-lamington-national-park/
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Graeme Fitzpatrick


On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 06:10, Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> wrote:
But are you adding
https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/conservation-and-heritage/national-parks/australias-national-parks
to all national parks  (because that is what Peter's link is doing).

Thanks Marc, but you may notice that I didn't mention the specific page that Peter linked to, I commented that there should be both general & specific links, & I stand by that.

& thanks again - that's a handy page that you found - bookmarked! :-)

Thanks

Graeme

_______________________________________________
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
I think several valid arguments could be made, depending on what specific example you think of. Most TOPs are one feature (<5m) sporting several functions, by design. In that case it makes sense to add the functions as tags to one node. In other cases it's more like a collection of spearate features, then you would place a node or way per feature and group them into say a site relation. In the simplest cases its just the name banner marking the start of one trail, then you could simply add highway=trail, information=board to that first node. In the basic tagging (just a node tagged highway=trailhead (required), name=* (important) ) I would leave the additional tagging open for mappers to decide on, according to local needs.

The additional tagging I used (both highway=trailhead and tourism=information where I see the TOP in the field as one multifunctional object)  does allow query select (overpass) and search (OSM Carto, waymarked trails) and rendering (OSM Carto and waymarked trails). 
If actual problems occur, maybe one could use secundary tags eg board=yes, map=yes? I do look forward to better tagging consensus, _after_ documenting with the common basic tagging agreement. For the Dutch trailhead dataset I will personally retag the lot if a different tagging is agreed upon. In other countries/regions I think you will find no extra tagging at all in the trailhead dataset.

Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 21:56 schreef Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]>:
Am 05.01.2019 um 20:57 schrieb Peter Elderson:
I can see your argument. 

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

First of all I think this mixes two distinct features into one as I described before: 1) the actual trail access, i. e. a point on the trail or a highway section leading to it and 2) the information infrastructure (information board, stele, you name it).


Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 12:23 schreef Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]>:
I think the thought of the  old proposal was to mark the point on a trail where to access it, hence hw=. Peter was more going in the direction of marking the point where we find information on how to access the trail (name, information board, sign, stele, ...), hence tourism=information + information=.

I think we should stick to the good old OSM rule "one feature - one OSM element" (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element). Obviously, the highway access and the information can be very close by, but pointing again at the TOP examples I mentioned before it's not always the case. So I am really in favor in separating them.

Secondly, combining those makes it difficult for data consumers. Unless they explicitly search for the combination of highway=trailhead and tourism=information and treating the node separately, they might run into problems. A renderer could for example display all information boards on the map. But they might handle all highway elements before in their processing chain and hence ignore the second top level key tourism all together. In the end we would neither see the highway=trailhead nor the information=board on the map.

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
In reply to this post by Tobias Wrede
The wikipedia page is not a list, it is a description of what a TOP is in Nederland. A wiki page about trailhead tagging is not the right place for that. I think this is within the scope of the wikipedia key. 
It facilitates one-click access to the wikipedia description from a rendering of the object on a POI map or a search result. If you see wikipedia as a dictionary, the link does not replace it but gives access to it. If other trailheads (non-TOP) would be mapped, they would not get this particular reference. 

the website key links to the official website of the operator for a particular region, not all trailheads. The OSM user will find all extra information for the TOPs in that region there. I think that is correct use of the tag. Purpose is the same as with the wikipedia key: quick access.

The url key has according to the wiki no specific purpose or limitation. I thought this url could come in handy when using these TOPs for bicycle route planning in Nederland. This site is currently being synchronized with OSM, for Nederland only.
I think the use of he key is not wrong, but adding a url of one specific application site for only one of the possible uses of the TOPs is questionnable. I think I will remove this a soon as I am done with the synchronization. 

Op zo 6 jan. 2019 om 12:15 schreef Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]>:
Am 03.01.2019 um 00:57 schrieb Peter Elderson:

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.



Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 23:43 schreef Tobias Wrede <[hidden email]>:

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.

Would you add https://www.government.nl/topics/primary-education to all amenity=school in the Netherlands? Or  wikipiedia=nl:Lijst_van_hogeronderwijsinstellingen_in_Nederland for all amenity=university? Or wikipedia=nl:Lijst_van_rivieren_in_Nederland to all the rivers? Or even wikipedia=nl:Rivier?

I think the Wikipedia and website links should be very specific to the individual object and not replace a dictionary.

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

Andy Townsend
On 09/01/2019 15:18, Peter Elderson wrote:
> The wikipedia page is not a list, it is a description of what a TOP is
> in Nederland.
> ..

> If other trailheads (non-TOP) would be mapped, they would not get this
> particular reference.
>

I'm not convinced that the things on that page
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toeristisch_Overstappunt really are
"trailheads" in any accepted English sense ("trailhead" is mostly an
American English concept rather than a British English one).

Why not just map the features that are there rather than choose another
word that actually means something else?  Alternatively, pick a
different word?

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
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 9, 2019 at 11:32 AM Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm not convinced that the things on that page
> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toeristisch_Overstappunt really are
> "trailheads" in any accepted English sense ("trailhead" is mostly an
> American English concept rather than a British English one).

I thought we'd arrived at a rough consensus that a trailhead is a
designated or customary point at which a trip on a trail begins or
ends. Are we back to trying to warp the definition so that only
Toeristich Overstappunt qualifies?

I can see some value to displaying, say, a "hiking" icon at trailheads
on a map whose theme is outdoor recreation, so I'm not against tagging
them. In fact, I'd be willing sporadically to add this tag when
mapping or updating a trailhead.

If it's an American English word, then Toeristich Overstappunt strikes
me as a poor translation. We simply don't have a system like that over
here.

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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Andy Townsend
On 09/01/2019 18:35, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> Are we back to trying to warp the definition so that only
> Toeristich Overstappunt qualifies?
>
The reverse of that, actually - based on my limited knowledge of these
in Noord Holland (which to be fair Peter said weren't typical of the
Dutch ones) they didn't look much like trailheads to me.

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Marc Gemis
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The wikipedia page is not a list, it is a description of what a TOP is in Nederland. A wiki page about trailhead tagging is not the right place for that. I think this is within the scope of the wikipedia key.

Just as it was discouraged (aka "please remove the tags") to tag every
Starbucks cafe with the Wikipedia link of Starbucks, I think the
linking an individual TOP point to the general description of TOP
should be discouraged.

m.

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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Marc Gemis
In reply to this post by Andy Townsend
So we are back to what I wrote a couple of days ago, after I saw that
Peter was struggling to come up with a trailhead definition that fits
all the "TOP"s.

We have on one hand trailheads (for which we seem to have a consensus)
and on the other hand TOPs, which sometimes fit the definition of
trailheads and sometimes not.

m.

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 9:22 PM Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 09/01/2019 18:35, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > Are we back to trying to warp the definition so that only
> > Toeristich Overstappunt qualifies?
> >
> The reverse of that, actually - based on my limited knowledge of these
> in Noord Holland (which to be fair Peter said weren't typical of the
> Dutch ones) they didn't look much like trailheads to me.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Marc Gemis



Jan 10, 2019, 10:13 AM by [hidden email]:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

The wikipedia page is not a list, it is a description of what a TOP is in Nederland. A wiki page about trailhead tagging is not the right place for that. I think this is within the scope of the wikipedia key.

Just as it was discouraged (aka "please remove the tags") to tag every
Starbucks cafe with the Wikipedia link of Starbucks, I think the
linking an individual TOP point to the general description of TOP
should be discouraged.

Yes, in the same way as linking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree on every natural=tree
using wikipedia tag is unwelcomed.


_______________________________________________
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 Marc Gemis
Where can I find that discussion / decision?

Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 10:16 schreef Marc Gemis <[hidden email]>:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The wikipedia page is not a list, it is a description of what a TOP is in Nederland. A wiki page about trailhead tagging is not the right place for that. I think this is within the scope of the wikipedia key.

Just as it was discouraged (aka "please remove the tags") to tag every
Starbucks cafe with the Wikipedia link of Starbucks, I think the
linking an individual TOP point to the general description of TOP
should be discouraged.

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
123456