On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM, fly <lowfligh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am 15.07.2011 15:18, schrieb Craig Wallace: > > On 15/07/2011 13:01, Zsolt Bertalan wrote: > >> Hi! > >> > >> This proposal is to replace the old Stamping Point proposal. > >> > >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hiking_checkpoint > >> > >> I'm not sure if the wording of the checkpoint type section is correct. > >> Do you now about other validation methods? Also the tourism_movement tag > >> now overlaps with the description tag. Please discuss! > > > > Some comments: > > Having two ways of tagging the same thing (tourism=hiking_checkpoint or > > hiking_checkpoint=yes) is confusing, and makes things more difficult for > > editors or renderers etc. Better just to agree on a single tag. > > I would suggest something like hiking=checkpoint, then it can be used on > > a node on its own or on an amenity or tourism=attraction etc. > > In general I agree, but are checkpoints only used for hiking routes ? > > No, I see it as a tourism feature. I don't want to introduce a new namespace. The other tag (hiking_checkpoint=yes) is only needed in the rare case if we already have a tourism tag. > For tourism_movement, I think you mean the name of the hiking route? > > In which case I would suggest tagging it as route:name or similar. So > > there's no need to also have that in the description tag. Otherwise its > > confusing as to whether that is the description of the route, or a > > description of the individual checkpoint. > > You could also add the checkpoint to the route relation. Then things > > like the route website can be tagged on the relation, not individual > > checkpoints. > > +1 > > No, tourism movement is not the same thing as a hiking route. Mostly they have their own hikig route, but there are also smaller, regional movements that use several different hiking routes. So no relations, that would be really confusing. I agree, description is confusing. It's the same as the movement but I used it for different languages. I think tourism_movement:en is not valid or useful. Maybe I should emphasise that it is used for the name of the movement in different language?. Just connect it with the relation to the routes. Role could be > checkpoint for appropriate route=* relations. > > I would use the description to give more information about the place > where the checkpoint is located in the pub, church ... > > I for one don't need that. It's just clutter. There is no problem asking somebody if I found the building. > > For checkpoint type, I would suggest tagging it as 'checkpoint:type'. > > The colon seems to be the standard separator for types of things. Also, > > it should be 'electronic', not 'electric'. > > +1 > > OK, I fix these. Cheers fly > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > regards Zsolt Herrbert74
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
