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
Someone asked what the requirements for a TOP in Nederland were. Not the OSM definition, but the actual requirements for the operators. I've answered that, without implying that these were OSM requirements or definitions. I have made that explicitly clear in several messages. Please do not suggest otherwise.  

For OSM tagging, I am consistently working towards a basic tagging for all designated/customary trailheads, including all TOPs en Natuurpoorten, for existing and future mappers who find these worth mapping. 

Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 10:19 schreef Marc Gemis <[hidden email]>:
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


--
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
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson
On the wiki page for the Wikipedia tag [1]

"only provide links to articles which are 'about the feature'. A link
from St Paul's Cathedral in London to an article about St Paul's
Cathedral on Wikipedia is fine. A link from a bus depot to the company
that operates it is not (see section below)."

what you do is similar to the bus depot example of what not to do.
Perhaps you could use "Secondary Wikipedia links" (see [1]) to resolve
your problem.


The discussion of the Starbucks usage was a.o. in the thread of [2]

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikipedia
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-January/075432.html

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:14 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 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

_______________________________________________
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
When I said "struggle", I mean that you still haven't given a
definition of a trailhead that covers what non-Dutch mappers
understand as trailhead and that covers all TOP-defined trailheads (as
Andy pointed out in one of his last mails).
If you are not struggling, please point me to the definition of a
trailhead that fits all your TOP places and that can be used outside
the TOP-context too.

m.

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:27 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Someone asked what the requirements for a TOP in Nederland were. Not the OSM definition, but the actual requirements for the operators. I've answered that, without implying that these were OSM requirements or definitions. I have made that explicitly clear in several messages. Please do not suggest otherwise.
>
> For OSM tagging, I am consistently working towards a basic tagging for all designated/customary trailheads, including all TOPs en Natuurpoorten, for existing and future mappers who find these worth mapping.
>
> Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 10:19 schreef Marc Gemis <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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
What you ask has been given repeatedly here in this discussion. Please do not make me repeat everything again.

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 10 jan. 2019 om 13:39 heeft Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:
>
> When I said "struggle", I mean that you still haven't given a
> definition of a trailhead that covers what non-Dutch mappers
> understand as trailhead and that covers all TOP-defined trailheads (as
> Andy pointed out in one of his last mails).
> If you are not struggling, please point me to the definition of a
> trailhead that fits all your TOP places and that can be used outside
> the TOP-context too.
>
> m.
>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:27 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Someone asked what the requirements for a TOP in Nederland were. Not the OSM definition, but the actual requirements for the operators. I've answered that, without implying that these were OSM requirements or definitions. I have made that explicitly clear in several messages. Please do not suggest otherwise.
>>
>> For OSM tagging, I am consistently working towards a basic tagging for all designated/customary trailheads, including all TOPs en Natuurpoorten, for existing and future mappers who find these worth mapping.
>>
>> Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 10:19 schreef Marc Gemis <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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

_______________________________________________
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
No it’s not. Please rethink your analogy.

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 10 jan. 2019 om 13:34 heeft Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:
>
> On the wiki page for the Wikipedia tag [1]
>
> "only provide links to articles which are 'about the feature'. A link
> from St Paul's Cathedral in London to an article about St Paul's
> Cathedral on Wikipedia is fine. A link from a bus depot to the company
> that operates it is not (see section below)."
>
> what you do is similar to the bus depot example of what not to do.
> Perhaps you could use "Secondary Wikipedia links" (see [1]) to resolve
> your problem.
>
>
> The discussion of the Starbucks usage was a.o. in the thread of [2]
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikipedia
> [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-January/075432.html
>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:14 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
wikipedia tag should be on trailhead solely in case where Wikipedia article is about this specific trailhead

AFAIK there is no existing tag to cover linking to Wikipedia pages describing type of feature, and
at least I see no use for it (but feel free to invent new one - though sooner or later someone would use it
to link "Tree" article from every single natural=tree)

Maybe tagging operator (and operator:wikipedia) will be enough?

Jan 10, 2019, 5:06 PM by [hidden email]:
No it’s not. Please rethink your analogy.

Mvg Peter Elderson
Op 10 jan. 2019 om 13:34 heeft Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

On the wiki page for the Wikipedia tag [1]

"only provide links to articles which are 'about the feature'. A link
from St Paul's Cathedral in London to an article about St Paul's
Cathedral on Wikipedia is fine. A link from a bus depot to the company
that operates it is not (see section below)."

what you do is similar to the bus depot example of what not to do.
Perhaps you could use "Secondary Wikipedia links" (see [1]) to resolve
your problem.


The discussion of the Starbucks usage was a.o. in the thread of [2]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:14 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

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



--
Vr gr Peter Elderson
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list


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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Peter Elderson
Analogy is not right. Not tagging all trailheads with this wikipedia reference, just the specific limited set fitting this specific concept described on the wikipedia page. 
Any of the existing prefixed keys does not fit either, e.g. brand:wikipedia or operator:wikipedia is not fitting: it's not a brand and it's not an operator, it's a concept used by multiple operators (will be 12 operators in the end).
So you could invent concept:wikipedia and add that to the trailheads using the concept. What would that accomplish? Exactly the same information, on exactly the same amount of nodes, just bypassing the existing referencing mechanisms, making it useless. The prefix keys are useful if multiple wikipedia references are applicable (according to the mapper). 

But again, this is local additional tagging which other mappers may or may not like.

I would like to focus on the idea of basic mapping of trailheads fitting all trailheads that mappers find useful to map. The basic proposition is: 

highway=trailhead on a node at a (visibly) designated or customary location for starting one or more trails. 
I move to add name=* as important second tag, because I think the place will almost always have a designated or customary name which makes it that much more usable for searches, lists and maps, but I understand there are examples of trailheads without a name. 

This covers all trailheads mapped worldwide so far, and excludes locations where a trail just crosses a road. Of course, the whole thing is not an obligation. There is no rule that every place fitting the description Shall Be Tagged As A Trailhead, just the ones mappers find worth tagging.



Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 17:47 schreef Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>:
wikipedia tag should be on trailhead solely in case where Wikipedia article is about this specific trailhead

AFAIK there is no existing tag to cover linking to Wikipedia pages describing type of feature, and
at least I see no use for it (but feel free to invent new one - though sooner or later someone would use it
to link "Tree" article from every single natural=tree)

Maybe tagging operator (and operator:wikipedia) will be enough?

Jan 10, 2019, 5:06 PM by [hidden email]:
No it’s not. Please rethink your analogy.

Mvg Peter Elderson
Op 10 jan. 2019 om 13:34 heeft Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:

On the wiki page for the Wikipedia tag [1]

"only provide links to articles which are 'about the feature'. A link
from St Paul's Cathedral in London to an article about St Paul's
Cathedral on Wikipedia is fine. A link from a bus depot to the company
that operates it is not (see section below)."

what you do is similar to the bus depot example of what not to do.
Perhaps you could use "Secondary Wikipedia links" (see [1]) to resolve
your problem.


The discussion of the Starbucks usage was a.o. in the thread of [2]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:14 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

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



--
Vr gr Peter Elderson
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list

_______________________________________________
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 11, 2019 at 8:45 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> highway=trailhead on a node at a (visibly) designated or customary location for starting one or more trails.

So how do we translate the American idea of trail (head) to Belgium
and The Netherlands.
Maybe for you it is clear, but I still have no idea what is we should
consider a trail in Belgium or The Netherlands.

Are the following items trailheads ?

- parkings near Hoge Veluwe (NL), Zoniënwoud, Kalmthoutse Heide and
any other nature reserve. Many nature reserves in Flanders are very
small and you cannot walk for hours in them unless you run in circles.
- parkings near parks (Park van Tervuren) or "landgoed (NL)" (aka manors ?)
- many signed circular walks start at the square or the church in
little villages, are they trailheads ? What about the ones starting in
the bigger towns ?
- any place where you can start walking on the walking networks ?
- what about MTB trails or cycling networks ?
- parkings near the beaches/dunes ?


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 Peter Elderson
Just as we do not map a wikipedia link to shop=car to explain the
concept for shops selling cars, we should perhaps not map wikipedia
links to explain TOPs.
We do not link nodes and routes of walking networks to wikipedia pages
(or other sites) explaining how you have to use them.
We do not link highway=motorway to a wiki page on osm.org to explain
the meaning of that concept.

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 8:45 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Analogy is not right. Not tagging all trailheads with this wikipedia reference, just the specific limited set fitting this specific concept described on the wikipedia page.
> Any of the existing prefixed keys does not fit either, e.g. brand:wikipedia or operator:wikipedia is not fitting: it's not a brand and it's not an operator, it's a concept used by multiple operators (will be 12 operators in the end).
> So you could invent concept:wikipedia and add that to the trailheads using the concept. What would that accomplish? Exactly the same information, on exactly the same amount of nodes, just bypassing the existing referencing mechanisms, making it useless. The prefix keys are useful if multiple wikipedia references are applicable (according to the mapper).
>
> But again, this is local additional tagging which other mappers may or may not like.
>
> I would like to focus on the idea of basic mapping of trailheads fitting all trailheads that mappers find useful to map. The basic proposition is:
>
> highway=trailhead on a node at a (visibly) designated or customary location for starting one or more trails.
> I move to add name=* as important second tag, because I think the place will almost always have a designated or customary name which makes it that much more usable for searches, lists and maps, but I understand there are examples of trailheads without a name.
>
> This covers all trailheads mapped worldwide so far, and excludes locations where a trail just crosses a road. Of course, the whole thing is not an obligation. There is no rule that every place fitting the description Shall Be Tagged As A Trailhead, just the ones mappers find worth tagging.
>
>
>
> Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 17:47 schreef Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> wikipedia tag should be on trailhead solely in case where Wikipedia article is about this specific trailhead
>>
>> AFAIK there is no existing tag to cover linking to Wikipedia pages describing type of feature, and
>> at least I see no use for it (but feel free to invent new one - though sooner or later someone would use it
>> to link "Tree" article from every single natural=tree)
>>
>> Maybe tagging operator (and operator:wikipedia) will be enough?
>>
>> Jan 10, 2019, 5:06 PM by [hidden email]:
>>
>> No it’s not. Please rethink your analogy.
>>
>> Mvg Peter Elderson
>>
>> Op 10 jan. 2019 om 13:34 heeft Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> On the wiki page for the Wikipedia tag [1]
>>
>> "only provide links to articles which are 'about the feature'. A link
>> from St Paul's Cathedral in London to an article about St Paul's
>> Cathedral on Wikipedia is fine. A link from a bus depot to the company
>> that operates it is not (see section below)."
>>
>> what you do is similar to the bus depot example of what not to do.
>> Perhaps you could use "Secondary Wikipedia links" (see [1]) to resolve
>> your problem.
>>
>>
>> The discussion of the Starbucks usage was a.o. in the thread of [2]
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikipedia
>> [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-January/075432.html
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:14 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> --
> 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
This is a separate discussion, not specific for trailhead tagging. Let's keep this thread about basic trailhead tagging.

Op vr 11 jan. 2019 om 09:17 schreef Marc Gemis <[hidden email]>:
Just as we do not map a wikipedia link to shop=car to explain the
concept for shops selling cars, we should perhaps not map wikipedia
links to explain TOPs.
We do not link nodes and routes of walking networks to wikipedia pages
(or other sites) explaining how you have to use them.
We do not link highway=motorway to a wiki page on osm.org to explain
the meaning of that concept.

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 8:45 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Analogy is not right. Not tagging all trailheads with this wikipedia reference, just the specific limited set fitting this specific concept described on the wikipedia page.
> Any of the existing prefixed keys does not fit either, e.g. brand:wikipedia or operator:wikipedia is not fitting: it's not a brand and it's not an operator, it's a concept used by multiple operators (will be 12 operators in the end).
> So you could invent concept:wikipedia and add that to the trailheads using the concept. What would that accomplish? Exactly the same information, on exactly the same amount of nodes, just bypassing the existing referencing mechanisms, making it useless. The prefix keys are useful if multiple wikipedia references are applicable (according to the mapper).
>
> But again, this is local additional tagging which other mappers may or may not like.
>
> I would like to focus on the idea of basic mapping of trailheads fitting all trailheads that mappers find useful to map. The basic proposition is:
>
> highway=trailhead on a node at a (visibly) designated or customary location for starting one or more trails.
> I move to add name=* as important second tag, because I think the place will almost always have a designated or customary name which makes it that much more usable for searches, lists and maps, but I understand there are examples of trailheads without a name.
>
> This covers all trailheads mapped worldwide so far, and excludes locations where a trail just crosses a road. Of course, the whole thing is not an obligation. There is no rule that every place fitting the description Shall Be Tagged As A Trailhead, just the ones mappers find worth tagging.
>
>
>
> Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 17:47 schreef Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> wikipedia tag should be on trailhead solely in case where Wikipedia article is about this specific trailhead
>>
>> AFAIK there is no existing tag to cover linking to Wikipedia pages describing type of feature, and
>> at least I see no use for it (but feel free to invent new one - though sooner or later someone would use it
>> to link "Tree" article from every single natural=tree)
>>
>> Maybe tagging operator (and operator:wikipedia) will be enough?
>>
>> Jan 10, 2019, 5:06 PM by [hidden email]:
>>
>> No it’s not. Please rethink your analogy.
>>
>> Mvg Peter Elderson
>>
>> Op 10 jan. 2019 om 13:34 heeft Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> On the wiki page for the Wikipedia tag [1]
>>
>> "only provide links to articles which are 'about the feature'. A link
>> from St Paul's Cathedral in London to an article about St Paul's
>> Cathedral on Wikipedia is fine. A link from a bus depot to the company
>> that operates it is not (see section below)."
>>
>> what you do is similar to the bus depot example of what not to do.
>> Perhaps you could use "Secondary Wikipedia links" (see [1]) to resolve
>> your problem.
>>
>>
>> The discussion of the Starbucks usage was a.o. in the thread of [2]
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikipedia
>> [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-January/075432.html
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:14 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> --
> 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

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by Marc Gemis
Apply, not translate. 

Mappers all over the world have tagged trailheads.
It is up to the mappers to decide if it's useful/worth it to map a particular location as a trailhead. This holds true for Nederland and Belgium as well. 

If you are at the locations you listed, and you see something there matching the basic desription, and you find it worth mapping, by all means feel free. You do not have to run that by me.

The locations now mapped in Nederland match the basic description. They are visible features marked in the field, clearly designed/designated to start one ore more trails, they are visibly operated and named, and they are displayed and used on many searches, maps, apps, routing sites and route planning sites, I think they are worth mapping. 

Op vr 11 jan. 2019 om 09:12 schreef Marc Gemis <[hidden email]>:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 8:45 AM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> highway=trailhead on a node at a (visibly) designated or customary location for starting one or more trails.

So how do we translate the American idea of trail (head) to Belgium
and The Netherlands.
Maybe for you it is clear, but I still have no idea what is we should
consider a trail in Belgium or The Netherlands.

Are the following items trailheads ?

- parkings near Hoge Veluwe (NL), Zoniënwoud, Kalmthoutse Heide and
any other nature reserve. Many nature reserves in Flanders are very
small and you cannot walk for hours in them unless you run in circles.
- parkings near parks (Park van Tervuren) or "landgoed (NL)" (aka manors ?)
- many signed circular walks start at the square or the church in
little villages, are they trailheads ? What about the ones starting in
the bigger towns ?
- any place where you can start walking on the walking networks ?
- what about MTB trails or cycling networks ?
- parkings near the beaches/dunes ?


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

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 07:45, Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Analogy is not right. Not tagging all trailheads with this wikipedia reference, just the specific limited set fitting this specific concept described on the wikipedia page. 

Why would you do this?  People keep making analogies to point out to you that this is not a
sensible thing to do.  And you agree that it is not sensible to link every footpath to a wikipedia
page explaining what a footpath is.  You agree that is it not sensible to link every bridleway to
a wikipedia entry explaining what a bridleway is.  You agree that it is not sensible to link every
church to a wikipedia page explaining what a church is.  The rest of us think that, for the same
reasons, it is not sensible to link every TOP to a wikipedia explaining what a TOP is.

All you actually need is some form of tag for a TOP.  That way, if it's implemented properly, when
people use the query tool on the node (which they'd have to do anyway if you persuaded the rest
of us to agree with your idea of tagging TOPs with a wikipedia entry), they see a list of tags for
the node.  Clickable tags and values, which lead to the relevant OSM wiki page defining what the
value means.

Coming up with a tag for TOPs is the right way to do it.  Adding the same wikipedia tag to every
TOP, as you want to do, is the wrong way to do it.

--
Paul



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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Peter Elderson
To me, coming up with a tag specific ony to this localised series of trailheads is not right.

Again, this argument is not relevant for the issue of basic trailhead tagging.

Op vr 11 jan. 2019 om 13:58 schreef Paul Allen <[hidden email]>:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 07:45, Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Analogy is not right. Not tagging all trailheads with this wikipedia reference, just the specific limited set fitting this specific concept described on the wikipedia page. 

Why would you do this?  People keep making analogies to point out to you that this is not a
sensible thing to do.  And you agree that it is not sensible to link every footpath to a wikipedia
page explaining what a footpath is.  You agree that is it not sensible to link every bridleway to
a wikipedia entry explaining what a bridleway is.  You agree that it is not sensible to link every
church to a wikipedia page explaining what a church is.  The rest of us think that, for the same
reasons, it is not sensible to link every TOP to a wikipedia explaining what a TOP is.

All you actually need is some form of tag for a TOP.  That way, if it's implemented properly, when
people use the query tool on the node (which they'd have to do anyway if you persuaded the rest
of us to agree with your idea of tagging TOPs with a wikipedia entry), they see a list of tags for
the node.  Clickable tags and values, which lead to the relevant OSM wiki page defining what the
value means.

Coming up with a tag for TOPs is the right way to do it.  Adding the same wikipedia tag to every
TOP, as you want to do, is the wrong way to do it.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
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

sdoerr
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
On 11/01/2019 12:56, Paul Allen wrote:
All you actually need is some form of tag for a TOP. 


designation = toeristisch_overstappunt


Virus-free. www.avast.com

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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Peter Elderson
It's not a "legal classification".

Op vr 11 jan. 2019 om 14:53 schreef Steve Doerr <[hidden email]>:
On 11/01/2019 12:56, Paul Allen wrote:
All you actually need is some form of tag for a TOP. 


designation = toeristisch_overstappunt


Virus-free. www.avast.com
_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson
On 1/11/19 2:43 AM, Peter Elderson wrote:
> This covers all trailheads mapped worldwide so far, and excludes
> locations where a trail just crosses a road.

Here we go again.

Some of the trailheads I've used are exactly that. One of those that I
can recall in particular is an important trailhead. If you start away
from it, it will be 60 km before you reach the next road that a car can
drive on, and another 25 to reach a town where you can get supplies or
assistance. If I recall correctly (it's about three years since I was up
that way) all there is at the trailhead is a guidepost (there's a
register book, but it's in the woods maybe 400 m to discourage
vandalism). If you want to park a car, you do that at a county
maintenance garage that's about half a km away on the highway.

And yes, this *is* a customary and designated place for starting/ending
a trip It's a 220 km trail, so most hikers don't do it in one shot. It's
a wilderness trail, so it simply doesn't have a lot of facilities other
than at its endpoints. A trailhead on that trail is simply any place
with highway access - and I can count them on my fingers, including a
couple that have access trails that aren't the main trail (maybe about a
5 km trip to get to the road from the main trail) and another couple
that cross 4WD-only roads.

There's no government agency designating the trailheads. The trail is
maintained by a hiking club, with the cooperation of the state
Department of Environmental Conservation. (The maintenance is haphazard,
as you'd expect on a trail that remote. That's part of the experience.)
The trailheads, however, are listed in guidebooks, and appear in a
shapefile that I get from the DEC that describes points of interest on
state-owned land. (I do *not* import that file because of data quality
issues.)

Despite your repeated denials, you're continuing to try to invent a set
of definitions that, at least in NL, will encompass all TOPs and nothing
else. If that's your aim, then invent a tag for TOP and use it,


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

Re: Trailhead tagging

Peter Elderson
Sorry if I was not clear.

This example matches the basic description you gave. It is not just a crossing, there is more: a guidepost, a register, i.e. visiblty designated, and it is listed and customary. 

Nothing in the basic description is specific for TOPs.

With "Excludes ... " I thought of the suggestion by someone on this list that all crossings could be marked as trailheads because you can start a route at any crossing. 

Op vr 11 jan. 2019 om 15:46 schreef Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>:
On 1/11/19 2:43 AM, Peter Elderson wrote:
> This covers all trailheads mapped worldwide so far, and excludes
> locations where a trail just crosses a road.

Here we go again.

Some of the trailheads I've used are exactly that. One of those that I
can recall in particular is an important trailhead. If you start away
from it, it will be 60 km before you reach the next road that a car can
drive on, and another 25 to reach a town where you can get supplies or
assistance. If I recall correctly (it's about three years since I was up
that way) all there is at the trailhead is a guidepost (there's a
register book, but it's in the woods maybe 400 m to discourage
vandalism). If you want to park a car, you do that at a county
maintenance garage that's about half a km away on the highway.

And yes, this *is* a customary and designated place for starting/ending
a trip It's a 220 km trail, so most hikers don't do it in one shot. It's
a wilderness trail, so it simply doesn't have a lot of facilities other
than at its endpoints. A trailhead on that trail is simply any place
with highway access - and I can count them on my fingers, including a
couple that have access trails that aren't the main trail (maybe about a
5 km trip to get to the road from the main trail) and another couple
that cross 4WD-only roads.

There's no government agency designating the trailheads. The trail is
maintained by a hiking club, with the cooperation of the state
Department of Environmental Conservation. (The maintenance is haphazard,
as you'd expect on a trail that remote. That's part of the experience.)
The trailheads, however, are listed in guidebooks, and appear in a
shapefile that I get from the DEC that describes points of interest on
state-owned land. (I do *not* import that file because of data quality
issues.)

Despite your repeated denials, you're continuing to try to invent a set
of definitions that, at least in NL, will encompass all TOPs and nothing
else. If that's your aim, then invent a tag for TOP and use it,


_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by sdoerr
On 11/01/2019 13:51, Steve Doerr wrote:
On 11/01/2019 12:56, Paul Allen wrote:
All you actually need is some form of tag for a TOP. 


Agreed

designation = toeristisch_overstappunt



Notwithstanding the 'It's not a "legal classification"' that was top-posted in a follow-up message, that's a better option than anything else so far.

There's actually something that essentially conforms to https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toeristisch_Overstappunt / https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=nl&tl=en&text=https%3A%2F%2Fnl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FToeristisch_Overstappunt outside of Chesterfield station in the UK .  There's no TOP-style "obelisk" but there is the very prominent logo of the Trans-Pennine Trail, which is the path that it serves.  I've just added the info board at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6201454917 , but the other features (easy access from multiple modes of transport) were there already.

There's no way that I'd map it as a trailhead though, whereas the ones that Kevin Kenny describes in his mail today obviously are.

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

Peter Elderson
For the basic trailhead definition, extra's are not required or implied. Just a (visibly) designated place for people to start a trail. The Trans-Pennine Trail trailhead is a trailhead, not a Dutch TOP. Nederland has trailheads other than TOPs.

Other tags that may be used with a trailhead node to map specific details or accompanying features for a particular trailhead are another issue, and will probably vary a lot according to country, specific location and judgment by the local mapper.

Op vr 11 jan. 2019 om 17:45 schreef Andy Townsend <[hidden email]>:
On 11/01/2019 13:51, Steve Doerr wrote:
On 11/01/2019 12:56, Paul Allen wrote:
All you actually need is some form of tag for a TOP. 


Agreed

designation = toeristisch_overstappunt



Notwithstanding the 'It's not a "legal classification"' that was top-posted in a follow-up message, that's a better option than anything else so far.

There's actually something that essentially conforms to https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toeristisch_Overstappunt / https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=nl&tl=en&text=https%3A%2F%2Fnl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FToeristisch_Overstappunt outside of Chesterfield station in the UK .  There's no TOP-style "obelisk" but there is the very prominent logo of the Trans-Pennine Trail, which is the path that it serves.  I've just added the info board at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6201454917 , but the other features (easy access from multiple modes of transport) were there already.

There's no way that I'd map it as a trailhead though, whereas the ones that Kevin Kenny describes in his mail today obviously are.

Best Regards,

Andy

_______________________________________________
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 11/01/2019 17:05, Peter Elderson wrote:
>  The Trans-Pennine Trail trailhead is a trailhead

No - it really isn't.  That was my entire point.  I'm willing to bet a
small round of beer in the pub up the road that almost no-one walking
past that info board will say "oh look - that's a trailhead for the TPT".

The problem with trying to shoe-horn other features into a particular
definition is that it dilutes the value of the features with that tag
that have already been mapped - in this case trailheads where "everyone"
will agree that they are trailheads.

That's not to say that the features that you're trying to record aren't
very important - I'm sure that they are, and it would make total sense
for a Dutch-focused transport, cycling or wanderroute-oriented map to
show them.

Best Regards,

Andy


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