Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 11, 2019, 8:43 AM by pelder...@gmail.com:

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

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

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

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

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

Other countries, different guidelines, I'm sure.

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 18 jan. 2019 om 11:54 schreef Tobias Wrede :

> While you clearly
> also have to enter a node network somewhere I see them more as a general
> navigation aid than a "trail".
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Marc Gemis]

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

regards

m.

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:54 AM Tobias Wrede  wrote:
>
> Am 18.01.2019 um 09:48 schrieb Marc Gemis:
> > So limiting it to named trails would be an option, however, the
> > tourist agencies seem to replace all such named walks with walking
> > node networks, so "trails" are now everywhere.
> > This means that you can start almost anywhere on a signposted walk.
> > Just take a look at
> > https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=9!50.9966!4.9715 and see how
> > fine mazed the orange networks are in Flanders and The Netherlands.
> > Note that not all network routes are mapped in Flanders yet and they
> > also rolled out a virtual network, which is no longer marked along the
> > way, but for which you need an app or GPS. So some holes will have to
> > be filled on the waymarkedtrails map.
> >
> > So I wonder whether we should map all trial x road junctions as
> > trailheads or limit them to places with more facilities (just to be
> > clear, locally, in Flanders). I don't know.
>
> I see your point. I had forgotten about node networks. While I haven't
> really seen any for hiking yet personally, they are also growing here
> for the cycling network. And of course they are mapped as route
> relations. I'm not sure if I should reconsider my earlier suggestion to
> put trailheads on anything in a route relation or not. While you clearly
> also have to enter a node network somewhere I see them more as a general
> navigation aid than a "trail". Whenever I use them I start from home or
> wherever I am, find my way to the closest node in the general direction
> and take it from there. I don't go to that node by car or bus first.
> It's probable that I already enter the network somewhere inbetween two
> nodes.
>
> So I wouldn't consider every node as a trailhead. And i would not put a
> trailhead on every intersection of a road and a network leg. If there
> was a somehow designated or customary place, though, where you would
> start hiking/cycling on the node network that could be marked as a
> trailhead with the same rights as on a "classical trail".
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Tobi
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 5:54 AM Tobias Wrede  wrote:
> > So I wonder whether we should map all trial x road junctions as
> > trailheads or limit them to places with more facilities (just to be
> > clear, locally, in Flanders). I don't know.
>
> I see your point. I had forgotten about node networks. While I haven't
> really seen any for hiking yet personally, they are also growing here
> for the cycling network. And of course they are mapped as route
> relations. I'm not sure if I should reconsider my earlier suggestion to
> put trailheads on anything in a route relation or not. While you clearly
> also have to enter a node network somewhere I see them more as a general
> navigation aid than a "trail". Whenever I use them I start from home or
> wherever I am, find my way to the closest node in the general direction
> and take it from there. I don't go to that node by car or bus first.
> It's probable that I already enter the network somewhere inbetween two
> nodes.
>
> So I wouldn't consider every node as a trailhead. And i would not put a
> trailhead on every intersection of a road and a network leg. If there
> was a somehow designated or customary place, though, where you would
> start hiking/cycling on the node network that could be marked as a
> trailhead with the same rights as on a "classical trail".
>
> Does that make sense?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 18.01.2019 um 09:48 schrieb Marc Gemis:

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

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


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


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


Does that make sense?

Tobi


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Marc Gemis]

Thanks Tobias and Graeme before for your views on trails.

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

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

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

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

m.

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 9:25 AM Tobias Wrede  wrote:
>
> Am 17.01.2019 um 08:32 schrieb Marc Gemis:
> > A trailhead is the start of a trail, but I haven't seen the definition
> > of a trail yet.
> >
> > An American trail seems like a long distance walking route in the
> > wilderness. It's probably the same in Australia, Is that
> > interpretation correct ? Is that a requirement for a trail ? If so,
> > you will be disappointed by what there trails are behind the
> > trailheads in The Netherlands (or Belgium).
>
>  From my European view I would exclude the wilderness bit. A lot of
> marked trails here path trough built-up area. There are even specific
> trails mostly through very urban area. I would say a trail is anything
> that would qualify for a route=hiking/bicycle/mtb/horse (possibly ski,
> snowmobile, inline_skates,... , I've never dealt with the latter ones).
>
> I would also encourage including the trailhead in the respective route
> relation(s) with role=trailhead.
>
> Tobias
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 17.01.2019 um 08:32 schrieb Marc Gemis:

A trailhead is the start of a trail, but I haven't seen the definition
of a trail yet.

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


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


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


Tobias


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 17:49:56 +1000
From: Graeme Fitzpatrick 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 17:35, Marc Gemis  wrote:


A trailhead is the start of a trail, but I haven't seen the definition
of a trail yet.


Wikipedia: A *trail* is usually a *path*, *track* or unpaved lane or road.

In Australia, the term *track* can be used interchangeably with trail, and
can refer to anything from a dirt road
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirt_road> to an unpaved pedestrian path
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footpath>.



An American trail seems like a long distance walking route in the
wilderness. It's probably the same in Australia, Is that
interpretation correct ?


Frequently, but not always!

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

Same thing for "wilderness" - yes, frequently, but not always.



Is that a requirement for a trail ? If so,
you will be disappointed by what there trails are behind the
trailheads in The Netherlands (or Belgium).


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

Thanks

Graeme



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


Mark



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 17:35, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> A trailhead is the start of a trail, but I haven't seen the definition
> of a trail yet.
>

Wikipedia: A *trail* is usually a *path*, *track* or unpaved lane or road.

In Australia, the term *track* can be used interchangeably with trail, and
can refer to anything from a dirt road
 to an unpaved pedestrian path
.


> An American trail seems like a long distance walking route in the
> wilderness. It's probably the same in Australia, Is that
> interpretation correct ?


Frequently, but not always!

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

Same thing for "wilderness" - yes, frequently, but not always.


> Is that a requirement for a trail ? If so,
> you will be disappointed by what there trails are behind the
> trailheads in The Netherlands (or Belgium).
>

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

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Marc Gemis]

A trailhead is the start of a trail, but I haven't seen the definition
of a trail yet.

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

m.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

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

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 17 jan. 2019 om 01:35 schreef Peter Elderson :

> Op 17 jan. 2019 om 01:14 heeft Kevin Kenny  het
> volgende geschreven:
> >
> > I'd say, by all means you should map the name if the trailhead has a
> > specific name that refers to it. Putting the name of the trail, the
> > name of the park, or the name of a nearby geographic feature on the
> > trailhead node is not the right thing unless that formally names the
> > trailhead as well.
>
> That’s what I mean. The name is not required, but there is one, it’s
> important to tag it. (Why? Because it enables searching, listing and
> rendering by name)
> Trailheads worth mapping tend to have names, see photo gallery, and google
> search. It is up to the mappers to decide if it’s worth mapping and
> determine what the name is, if any.
> If the wording is not clear, can you provide a different wording?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Jmapb]

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


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


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


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


Vr gr Peter Elderson


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


Jason

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

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

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 16 jan. 2019 om 22:50 schreef Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> > in my experience, the spot you start walking from is very rarely named
> as such, it just has a sign to say "Whatever Track".
>
> In that case, the trailhead does not have a name. The track or trail
> itself should have a name=* tag, but the trailhead should only be taggged
> with a name if it is different.
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:16 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 20:07, Dave Swarthout 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Your proposal looks good. I would vote "yes" on it.
>>>
>>
>> Yep, I would as well.
>>
>> One every minor thought - under "How to map" you have "Name of the
>> trailhead" - maybe change that to be "trailhead or trail / track"?
>> Reason is that in Australia they're (usually) called tracks, not trails
>> :-), & in my experience, the spot you start walking from is very rarely
>> named as such, it just has a sign to say "Whatever Track".
>>
>> & interesting to see that there's already ~1400 of them in use!
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> in my experience, the spot you start walking from is very rarely named as
such, it just has a sign to say "Whatever Track".

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

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:16 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 20:07, Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
>
>> Your proposal looks good. I would vote "yes" on it.
>>
>
> Yep, I would as well.
>
> One every minor thought - under "How to map" you have "Name of the
> trailhead" - maybe change that to be "trailhead or trail / track"?
> Reason is that in Australia they're (usually) called tracks, not trails
> :-), & in my experience, the spot you start walking from is very rarely
> named as such, it just has a sign to say "Whatever Track".
>
> & interesting to see that there's already ~1400 of them in use!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

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

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

-- 
Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 16 jan. 2019 om 22:16 schreef Graeme Fitzpatrick <
graemefi...@gmail.com>:

>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 20:07, Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
>
>> Your proposal looks good. I would vote "yes" on it.
>>
>
> Yep, I would as well.
>
> One every minor thought - under "How to map" you have "Name of the
> trailhead" - maybe change that to be "trailhead or trail / track"?
> Reason is that in Australia they're (usually) called tracks, not trails
> :-), & in my experience, the spot you start walking from is very rarely
> named as such, it just has a sign to say "Whatever Track".
>
> & interesting to see that there's already ~1400 of them in use!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 20:30:56 +0100
From: Peter Elderson 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging


I have added parking space, not as a requirement but as something that will
usually be available. The only requirement is that the place is visibly
designated or customary to hop on a trail.


[...]

Thanks!

Mark


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 20:07, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Your proposal looks good. I would vote "yes" on it.
>

Yep, I would as well.

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

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

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

I copied the page from the highway=bus_stop page, because the thing
resembles a bus stop.

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

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

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

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 16 jan. 2019 om 20:25 schreef Jmapb :

> On 1/16/2019 12:56 PM, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:28 PM Peter Elderson 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I made a concept wiki page:
> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:trailhead
> >>> I think it fits the outcome of this discussion. If not, feel free to
> >>> comment.
> >>>
> >
> > A lot of the trailheads I've mapped contain none of the identifiers
> > you mentioned in the first paragraph (shelter, pole, special design,
> > flag, etc.), all they have is a designated parking lot for your
> > vehicle.  I would like your wiki page better if you included a
> > designated parking area in the list of possible identifiers.
> >
> > Mark
>
> I agree that a parking area belongs in that list. I also wonder about
> the text that specifies that the highway=trailhead nodes should be
> positioned "off the road." I think the wording here could be clearer.
> The word "road" isn't mentioned anywhere else on the page, so I'm not
> sure if this refers to the trail (or the route to the trail) or if it
> implies a nearby vehicular road. I would guess the latter, and if so, is
> this a required part of the definition? Offhand I can conceive of a
> trailhead inside a park with no vehicular road nearby. Here's an example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2896479066
>
> Jason
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

I have added parking space, not as a requirement but as something that will
usually be available. The only requirement is that the place is visibly
designated or customary to hop on a trail.

The description does not mention, favour nor exclude any local variants, I
think. Most of the photos show trailheads explicitly named Trailhead, so I
assumed that these are called trailheads in at least one flavour of the
English language. None of those are Dutch. I plan to add one Dutch example,
as soon as I find out how to add a photo to the gallery.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 16 jan. 2019 om 19:06 schreef Andy Townsend :

>
> On 1/16/19 5:56 PM, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:
> > A lot of the trailheads I've mapped contain none of the identifiers
> > you mentioned in the first paragraph (shelter, pole, special design,
> > flag, etc.), all they have is a designated parking lot for your
> > vehicle.  I would like your wiki page better if you included a
> > designated parking area in the list of possible identifiers.
> >
> >
> I'd agree with that.
>
> Currently the wiki page is describing something that doesn't really
> correspond to the word "trailhead" in English.  There are plenty of
> other examples of that sort of thing in OSM ("city" is an obvious one);
> but I'd suggest trying to avoid creating more to avoid future confusion.
>
> To be clear - as I've said before, and based on my experience of them,
> I'm sure that the sites in NL that are driving this are _really
> important_ and _really worth mapping_ but I don't think that they are
> trailheads, in a similar way to Chesterfield's TPT notice board outside
> the station isn't (as also mentioned previously).
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Jmapb]

On 1/16/2019 12:56 PM, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:


On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:28 PM Peter Elderson  
wrote:



I made a concept wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:trailhead
I think it fits the outcome of this discussion. If not, feel free to
comment.



A lot of the trailheads I've mapped contain none of the identifiers 
you mentioned in the first paragraph (shelter, pole, special design, 
flag, etc.), all they have is a designated parking lot for your 
vehicle.  I would like your wiki page better if you included a 
designated parking area in the list of possible identifiers.


Mark


I agree that a parking area belongs in that list. I also wonder about 
the text that specifies that the highway=trailhead nodes should be 
positioned "off the road." I think the wording here could be clearer. 
The word "road" isn't mentioned anywhere else on the page, so I'm not 
sure if this refers to the trail (or the route to the trail) or if it 
implies a nearby vehicular road. I would guess the latter, and if so, is 
this a required part of the definition? Offhand I can conceive of a 
trailhead inside a park with no vehicular road nearby. Here's an example:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2896479066

Jason


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Andy Townsend]

On 1/16/19 5:56 PM, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:
A lot of the trailheads I've mapped contain none of the identifiers 
you mentioned in the first paragraph (shelter, pole, special design, 
flag, etc.), all they have is a designated parking lot for your 
vehicle.  I would like your wiki page better if you included a 
designated parking area in the list of possible identifiers.




I'd agree with that.

Currently the wiki page is describing something that doesn't really 
correspond to the word "trailhead" in English.  There are plenty of 
other examples of that sort of thing in OSM ("city" is an obvious one); 
but I'd suggest trying to avoid creating more to avoid future confusion.


To be clear - as I've said before, and based on my experience of them, 
I'm sure that the sites in NL that are driving this are _really 
important_ and _really worth mapping_ but I don't think that they are 
trailheads, in a similar way to Chesterfield's TPT notice board outside 
the station isn't (as also mentioned previously).


Best Regards,

Andy



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[EthnicFood IsGreat]

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 17:04:23 +0700
From: Dave Swarthout 
To: Peter Elderson 
Cc: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging


Your proposal looks good. I would vote "yes" on it.

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:28 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:


I made a concept wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:trailhead
I think it fits the outcome of this discussion. If not, feel free to
comment.

I don't want to change the earlier proposal, it is a step further than my
concept tagging page which just documents existing practice.


Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 15 jan. 2019 om 00:41 schreef Dave Swarthout <
daveswarth...@gmail.com>:


Kevin said:
I'm therefore going to stick with 'designated or customary place to
begin or end a trip on a trail.'

Me too. I've mapped many such trailheads in Alaska and almost everybody I
know would recognize the term trailhead as meaning a point of access to a
path or trail. It's fine to add other details, like parking, toilets,
registration facilities, etc. separately. I haven't followed this thread
carefully, so can't speak to the TOP situation fully but I do know a
trailhead when I see it on a map or otherwise.

Dave

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 6:16 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:


On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 09:04, Tod Fitch  wrote:


Guess: Someone found it on the trail and figured it would be easier for
the person missing it to find it hanging from the sign than some place
along miles of trail.


Bit of a problem when you've got to walk back the 65 klm looking for it!

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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


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



A lot of the trailheads I've mapped contain none of the identifiers you 
mentioned in the first paragraph (shelter, pole, special design, flag, 
etc.), all they have is a designated parking lot for your vehicle.  I 
would like your wiki page better if you included a designated parking 
area in the list of possible identifiers.


Mark


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Dave Swarthout]

Your proposal looks good. I would vote "yes" on it.

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 4:28 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:

> I made a concept wiki page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:trailhead
> I think it fits the outcome of this discussion. If not, feel free to
> comment.
>
> I don't want to change the earlier proposal, it is a step further than my
> concept tagging page which just documents existing practice.
>
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op di 15 jan. 2019 om 00:41 schreef Dave Swarthout <
> daveswarth...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Kevin said:
>> I'm therefore going to stick with 'designated or customary place to
>> begin or end a trip on a trail.'
>>
>> Me too. I've mapped many such trailheads in Alaska and almost everybody I
>> know would recognize the term trailhead as meaning a point of access to a
>> path or trail. It's fine to add other details, like parking, toilets,
>> registration facilities, etc. separately. I haven't followed this thread
>> carefully, so can't speak to the TOP situation fully but I do know a
>> trailhead when I see it on a map or otherwise.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 6:16 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 09:04, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>>>

 Guess: Someone found it on the trail and figured it would be easier for
 the person missing it to find it hanging from the sign than some place
 along miles of trail.

>>>
>>> Bit of a problem when you've got to walk back the 65 klm looking for it!
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Graeme
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Swarthout
>> Homer, Alaska
>> Chiang Mai, Thailand
>> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

I made a concept wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:trailhead
I think it fits the outcome of this discussion. If not, feel free to
comment.

I don't want to change the earlier proposal, it is a step further than my
concept tagging page which just documents existing practice.


Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 15 jan. 2019 om 00:41 schreef Dave Swarthout :

> Kevin said:
> I'm therefore going to stick with 'designated or customary place to
> begin or end a trip on a trail.'
>
> Me too. I've mapped many such trailheads in Alaska and almost everybody I
> know would recognize the term trailhead as meaning a point of access to a
> path or trail. It's fine to add other details, like parking, toilets,
> registration facilities, etc. separately. I haven't followed this thread
> carefully, so can't speak to the TOP situation fully but I do know a
> trailhead when I see it on a map or otherwise.
>
> Dave
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 6:16 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 09:04, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Guess: Someone found it on the trail and figured it would be easier for
>>> the person missing it to find it hanging from the sign than some place
>>> along miles of trail.
>>>
>>
>> Bit of a problem when you've got to walk back the 65 klm looking for it!
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 09:51, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> I've even seen parties going in opposite directions arrange to exchange
> their keys at the midpoint, and then each picks up the other's car at
> the end and drives to a common meeting point. Long-distance hikers are
> a creative lot.
>

Yep, seen that one around here, where there's a very popular 25k walk
between two lodges, but which are ~80k drive apart!

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:16 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 09:04, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>> Guess: Someone found it on the trail and figured it would be easier for the 
>> person missing it to find it hanging from the sign than some place along 
>> miles of trail.
> Bit of a problem when you've got to walk back the 65 klm looking for it!

Yeah, but usually when someone finds stuff on the trail and does
something like that, they'll also leave notes in the registers, and I
didn't see any.

The other thing that people sometimes do is odd car shuttles - it's
not unheard of for people with multiple cars available to have
complicated shuttles getting them to trailheads. This key could have
been from an arrangement like: hiker leaves car with shuttler in
Northville.  Shuttler and partner drive in two cars to Lake Placid,
park the hiker's car there. Shuttler and partner ride in the
shuttler's car to Long Lake, leave the key for the hiker to find, and
then return home. Hiker gets his key when he passes Long Lake and his
car is waiting in Lake Placid. (The key is much less useful to a thief
when it's 65 km from the car!) Although for those arrangements,
they'll usually choose a loss obvious cache for the key, or leave it
in trust with a shopkeeper or postmaster for the hiker to claim. I've
even seen parties going in opposite directions arrange to exchange
their keys at the midpoint, and then each picks up the other's car at
the end and drives to a common meeting point. Long-distance hikers are
a creative lot.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Dave Swarthout]

Kevin said:
I'm therefore going to stick with 'designated or customary place to
begin or end a trip on a trail.'

Me too. I've mapped many such trailheads in Alaska and almost everybody I
know would recognize the term trailhead as meaning a point of access to a
path or trail. It's fine to add other details, like parking, toilets,
registration facilities, etc. separately. I haven't followed this thread
carefully, so can't speak to the TOP situation fully but I do know a
trailhead when I see it on a map or otherwise.

Dave

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 6:16 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 09:04, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>
>>
>> Guess: Someone found it on the trail and figured it would be easier for
>> the person missing it to find it hanging from the sign than some place
>> along miles of trail.
>>
>
> Bit of a problem when you've got to walk back the 65 klm looking for it!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 09:04, Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
> Guess: Someone found it on the trail and figured it would be easier for
> the person missing it to find it hanging from the sign than some place
> along miles of trail.
>

Bit of a problem when you've got to walk back the 65 klm looking for it!

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jan 14, 2019, at 2:51 PM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:50 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
>  wrote:
>> What's the key dangling there for, Kev?
> 
> Absolutely no idea! I left it as I found it.
> 

Guess: Someone found it on the trail and figured it would be easier for the 
person missing it to find it hanging from the sign than some place along miles 
of trail.
Source: I’ve seen that done elsewhere.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:50 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
 wrote:
> What's the key dangling there for, Kev?

Absolutely no idea! I left it as I found it.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

What's the key dangling there for, Kev?

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 08:05, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14920080943/ -
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

I agree. I never meant to exclude any significant path to a trail, even if it’s 
‘ just’ a path, it can of course be significant because it’s the only access 
point in miles, even if it has no official name, and that’s precisely why I 
keep saying it’s up to the mappers. 

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 14 jan. 2019 om 23:04 heeft Kevin Kenny  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:16 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:
>> 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".
> 
> On the other hand, I'll bet you a beer in Lake Placid that at least
> half the people in the bar at the Adirondack Hotel in Long Lake
> village would recognize that this sign
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14920080943/ - which simply stands
> on the roadside at a path going into the woods, with no other
> facilities right there - marks a trailhead for the Northville-Placid
> Trail. (When I say 'no other facilities right there,' what I mean is
> that there's a town about 4-5 km down the highway, and it's an easy
> walk on the shoulder(verge) or an equally easy hitch.)
> 
> It's an important trailhead. Shattuck Clearing on the sign is the site
> of a FORMER ranger station that burnt in the 1960's. Since its road
> hasn't been maintained since then, it's grown to trees and entirely
> impassable to anything on wheels, so while it serves as a landmark,
> it's not an opportunity to get help or leave the trail. If you hike in
> at that trailhead, except for a handful of spots on a lake where it
> would be possible to land a canoe or water-taxi a float plane, there's
> no other way out closer than Lake Placid. It's 58.6 km to the next
> highway, about 63 km if you're walking to the town - or to turn around
> back the way you came. "The last chance to leave the trail for the
> next two or three days" is kind of important to map!
> 
> I'm therefore going to stick with 'designated or customary place to
> begin or end a trip on a trail.'
> 
> As long as Peter is agreed that not all trailheads are anything
> resembling TOP's and not all TOP's are trailheads, I think we're in
> rough agreement. Where I get a bit prickly is at sweeping assertions
> like "a trailhead must be something more than where a path crosses a
> road."  When you're on a trail where it's 60 km between roads (the NPT
> crosses four paved roads in 222 km), you're damned right that anywhere
> that the trail crosses a road is a trailhead!
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:16 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 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".

On the other hand, I'll bet you a beer in Lake Placid that at least
half the people in the bar at the Adirondack Hotel in Long Lake
village would recognize that this sign
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14920080943/ - which simply stands
on the roadside at a path going into the woods, with no other
facilities right there - marks a trailhead for the Northville-Placid
Trail. (When I say 'no other facilities right there,' what I mean is
that there's a town about 4-5 km down the highway, and it's an easy
walk on the shoulder(verge) or an equally easy hitch.)

It's an important trailhead. Shattuck Clearing on the sign is the site
of a FORMER ranger station that burnt in the 1960's. Since its road
hasn't been maintained since then, it's grown to trees and entirely
impassable to anything on wheels, so while it serves as a landmark,
it's not an opportunity to get help or leave the trail. If you hike in
at that trailhead, except for a handful of spots on a lake where it
would be possible to land a canoe or water-taxi a float plane, there's
no other way out closer than Lake Placid. It's 58.6 km to the next
highway, about 63 km if you're walking to the town - or to turn around
back the way you came. "The last chance to leave the trail for the
next two or three days" is kind of important to map!

I'm therefore going to stick with 'designated or customary place to
begin or end a trip on a trail.'

As long as Peter is agreed that not all trailheads are anything
resembling TOP's and not all TOP's are trailheads, I think we're in
rough agreement. Where I get a bit prickly is at sweeping assertions
like "a trailhead must be something more than where a path crosses a
road."  When you're on a trail where it's 60 km between roads (the NPT
crosses four paved roads in 222 km), you're damned right that anywhere
that the trail crosses a road is a trailhead!

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

What Kevin said was not my aim, I have said that before. I agreed with the 
general description Kenny came up with. Those places can be (and have been) 
tagged highway=trailhead, whether these are also TOPs or not, that is the idea.

You can disagree whether particular places now marked as trailheads match this 
description, but the issue here is: tagging the places that do match it. If 
there is consensus, then we (mappers) can evaluate  individual nodes.

I agree some of the TOPs will probably not qualify, but most of them will. Not 
because they are TOPs, but because they are places visibly designed to start 
hiking or riding on one or more routes.

Let’s talk additional and localised tagging after this basic step. Did I hear 
you menton “consensus”?

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 14 jan. 2019 om 17:24 heeft Tobias Wrede  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
>> Am 11.01.2019 um 15:45 schrieb Kevin Kenny:
>> 
>> 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,
> 
> That's a good summary I can second. Peter, there are probably a lot of TOPs 
> that are trailheads or where a trailhead is part of them. But there are other 
> TOPs that are not trailheads in the spirit of the original proposal (to my 
> understanding) nor the consensus that has been come up in this discussion. I 
> pointed out a couple of the latter earlier (I did not search for those 
> explicitly they were the first ones that I randomly selected from an overpass 
> turbo query).
> 
> I also still stand by my earlier suggestion: Mark the trailheads as such 
> (preferably as a point on a path/track/etc.) with hw=trailhead. Mark the TOPs 
> with a separate node or in some cases better even area and a new key/value 
> pair designating it as such. Several suggestions have been made in this 
> thread (tourism=, leisure=, designation=, ...). If you must, use the same 
> node for hw=trailhead and whatever=TOPorWhatNot but I would advise against 
> that.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 11.01.2019 um 18:15 schrieb 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".


I wouldn't agree here. Even if your pub patrons wouldn't call it a 
trailhead it is one. The TPT purposely makes  a detour to the South to 
meet Chesterfield station. 
(https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=1u1vrqls0lVh49X3ZpT7Bh2728Q8=53.244018099803014%2C-1.4135915937870323=15 
Isn't the trail mapped in OSM?) It might not have a big signpost "here 
be trails" but it meets the consensus definition of a trailhead, namely 
giving easy access to a trail. On top it even has an information board, 
parking, rail station, toilets in the station, pub up the road, ... It's 
quite a posh trailhead actually ( :-) to use some other participant's 
words here).


The position of the new board you mapped is not the trailhead, though. 
I'm with you that far.


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.



+1

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. 

Absolutely.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 11.01.2019 um 15:45 schrieb Kevin Kenny:


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,


That's a good summary I can second. Peter, there are probably a lot of 
TOPs that are trailheads or where a trailhead is part of them. But there 
are other TOPs that are not trailheads in the spirit of the original 
proposal (to my understanding) nor the consensus that has been come up 
in this discussion. I pointed out a couple of the latter earlier (I did 
not search for those explicitly they were the first ones that I randomly 
selected from an overpass turbo query).


I also still stand by my earlier suggestion: Mark the trailheads as such 
(preferably as a point on a path/track/etc.) with hw=trailhead. Mark the 
TOPs with a separate node or in some cases better even area and a new 
key/value pair designating it as such. Several suggestions have been 
made in this thread (tourism=, leisure=, designation=, ...). If you 
must, use the same node for hw=trailhead and whatever=TOPorWhatNot but I 
would advise against that.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Michael Patrick]

> 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.
>

There are many trail heads to systems which are reached by boat,
See http://www.bostonharborislands.org/hike-the-harbor. In remote areas
of Alaska, Maine, etc., you can reach some by only rail, by requesting a
'flag stop'. I recall some Scandinavian country had a shuttle flights to
remote areas to pickup and drop off cross country skiers from central
points. There are trails along abandoned railroad right of ways which
cross roads using the trestles, without any direct access to the roads,
similarly, some follow streams which pass hundreds of feet under
the highway bridges above. At least in the U.S.A. the most that can be
said of a trailhead is that it has some form of transportation access and
link to the trail system, not even that they are the start of finish.I've
been
to some that had no more than tree blazes marking them or a highway
mile marker referencing them.

I know it's a wild thought, but why don't you look at the data models
that already exist, like the British Ordnance Survey, the U.S. FGDC,
or the E.U. Inspire standard.

For the term 'trailhead', it is kept as very simple concept, "where a
pedestrian network affords a transition to other transport networks".
Everything else that might be in proximity to the trailhead, the parking,
visitor centers, kiosks, etc. are bundled together, and, handled as if
there was no 'trailhead' there at all.

>  then invent a tag for TOP and use it,

+1, I'll help. I suspect it  already exists, or is underdevelopment,  since
the Netherlands is at the forefront of Inspire adoption.

A trailhead is a singular thing, that point at the interface between
networks,
it isn't collection of things. Those other things might be in proximity or
coincident with the trailhead, but they don't contribute to the definition
of trail head. For that matter, it really might not be considered even a
thin itself, because it really is a only 'reference' to other non-trail
networks.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

Well, trailheads as defined in this basic proposition have been mapped, and
continue to be mapped all over the world. I guess there must be people who
think it useful, and others who think not.

Very OSM.

Op vr 11 jan. 2019 om 18:16 schreef 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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 :

> 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=translate=nl=en=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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Andy Townsend]

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=translate=nl=en=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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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 :

> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

It's not a "legal classification".

Op vr 11 jan. 2019 om 14:53 schreef Steve Doerr :

> 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
> 
> <#m_1248141136862295208_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Steve Doerr]

On 11/01/2019 12:56, Paul Allen wrote:

All you actually need is some form of tag for a TOP.



designation = toeristisch_overstappunt



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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 :

> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 07:45, Peter Elderson  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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 07:45, Peter Elderson  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

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 :

> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 8:45 AM Peter Elderson 
> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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 :

> 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 
> 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 <
> matkoni...@tutanota.com>:
> >>
> >> 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 pelder...@gmail.com:
> >>
> >> No it’s not. Please rethink your analogy.
> >>
> >> Mvg Peter Elderson
> >>
> >> Op 10 jan. 2019 om 13:34 heeft Marc Gemis  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 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Where can I find that discussion / decision?
> >>
> >> Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 10:16 schreef Marc Gemis :
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson 
> 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
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> 

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Marc Gemis]

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  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 
> :
>>
>> 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 pelder...@gmail.com:
>>
>> No it’s not. Please rethink your analogy.
>>
>> Mvg Peter Elderson
>>
>> Op 10 jan. 2019 om 13:34 heeft Marc Gemis  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  wrote:
>>
>> Where can I find that discussion / decision?
>>
>> Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 10:16 schreef Marc Gemis :
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson  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
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Marc Gemis]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 8:45 AM Peter Elderson  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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 pelder...@gmail.com:

> No it’s not. Please rethink your analogy.
>
> Mvg Peter Elderson
>
>> Op 10 jan. 2019 om 13:34 heeft Marc Gemis <>> marc.ge...@gmail.com 
>> >> > 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 <>>> pelder...@gmail.com 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Where can I find that discussion / decision?
>>>
>>> Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 10:16 schreef Marc Gemis <>>> marc.ge...@gmail.com 
>>> :
>>>

 On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson < pelder...@gmail.com 
  > 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
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
 

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
>>> 
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
>> 
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> 
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

No it’s not. Please rethink your analogy.

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 10 jan. 2019 om 13:34 heeft Marc Gemis  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  wrote:
>> 
>> Where can I find that discussion / decision?
>> 
>> Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 10:16 schreef Marc Gemis :
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson  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
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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  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  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 :
>>> 
>>> 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  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
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Marc Gemis]

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  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 :
>>
>> 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  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
>> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Marc Gemis]

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  wrote:
>
> Where can I find that discussion / decision?
>
> Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 10:16 schreef Marc Gemis :
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson  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
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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 :

> 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  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
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

Where can I find that discussion / decision?

Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 10:16 schreef Marc Gemis :

> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson  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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 10, 2019, 10:13 AM by marc.ge...@gmail.com:

> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson <> pelder...@gmail.com 
> > > 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Marc Gemis]

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  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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Marc Gemis]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:32 AM Andy Townsend  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

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 :

> 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 :
>
>>
>> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

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 :

> 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 :
>
>> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 06:10, Marc Gemis  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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  wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 at 21:15, Tobias Wrede  wrote:
>>
>> Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 23:43 schreef Tobias Wrede :
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 at 21:15, Tobias Wrede  wrote:

> Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 23:43 schreef Tobias Wrede :
>
>>
>> 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Tobias Wrede]

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 >:



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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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 >:


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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[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.

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 :

> 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 :
>
>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Peter Elderson 
>> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.4398109,5.860274,3a,50.1y,252.66h,85.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smxyMZsRagjIZ1-b_02F3fA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl=0

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 :

> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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 :

> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Tobias Wrede]

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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 
mailto:kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>>:


On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Peter Elderson mailto:pelder...@gmail.com>> 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[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 :

>
>
> Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 13:22 schreef Marc Gemis :
>
>> 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?
>
>
>> 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 
>> 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 :
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 20:57:04 +0100
>> >> Peter Elderson  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.
>> >>
>> >> 

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

Let's agree to agree!

Op vr 4 jan. 2019 om 16:52 schreef Kevin Kenny :

> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Peter Elderson  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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Peter Elderson  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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 :

> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 13:22 schreef Marc Gemis :
> >>
> >> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Marc Gemis]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
>
>
> Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 13:22 schreef Marc Gemis :
>>
>> 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 13:22 schreef Marc Gemis :

> 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?


> 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 
> 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 :
> >>
> >> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 20:57:04 +0100
> >> Peter Elderson  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
> >> 

Re: [Tagging] 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  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 :
>>
>> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 20:57:04 +0100
>> Peter Elderson  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
>> 

Re: [Tagging] 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 :

> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 20:57:04 +0100
> Peter Elderson  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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 20:57:04 +0100
Peter Elderson  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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 :

> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 7:26 PM Peter Elderson  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 

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 7:26 PM Peter Elderson  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 

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

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 :

> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:58 PM Peter Elderson  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 

Re: [Tagging] 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 :

> 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 " 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 :
>
>> 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
>> 

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

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 " 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 :

> 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
> 

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:58 PM Peter Elderson  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 

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Tobias Wrede]

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

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.

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



Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 19:44 schreef Kevin Kenny :

> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 AM Peter Elderson  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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

I agree. That is not suggested.

Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 19:05 schreef Jo :

> 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 
> 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 
>> 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 :
>>>
 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=>>> 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
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Swarthout
>> Homer, Alaska
>> Chiang Mai, Thailand
>> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 AM Peter Elderson  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Jo]

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 
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  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 :
>>
>>> 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=>> 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
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Dave Swarthout]

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  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 :
>
>> 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=> 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
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

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 :

> 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=.
> >
> > 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging