But I'd be willing to bet that most trails are not part of a network of other trails or a route but are stand-alone. The trails I once hiked in the Adirondack Mountains in New York State all have names and trailheads but, with a couple of exceptions, are not part of any route. I think the mixed approach is best. If a given trail is part of a larger system of trails, or the area where it begins has related amenities, then the relation idea makes sense. Otherwise, keeping it simple with a named trailhead node where the transition from highway to footway takes place will suffice.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Friedrich Volkmann <b...@volki.at> wrote: > On 14.04.2015 23:32, Gmail wrote: > > role=start is used for crosscountry ski routes relations. > > I like the idea to include trailheads as members of route relations. > > It's a more versatile approach than highway=trailhead. > > -- > Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ > Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria > > _______________________________________________ > 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
