On 17/04/2015 8:08 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
On 16.04.2015 06:25, Dave Swarthout wrote:
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.
Without a relation, how can applications determine which trail the trailhead
belongs to? Is it all about rendering the trailhead icon?
Surely the tailhead will be at least in close proximity to the trail
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why do applications need to determine this? I'd think the human end user
will easly see the 'relationship'.
Where I to map a tail head .. it would be a single node ON the trail it
self. As I see little point in mapping a trailhead I'll probably not map
them .. in my local area they have no name, no amenities other than that
provided by the other mapped features around them. Oh .. and the local
trails were put in by a bulldozer to make fire trails thus they were
highway=track, some have deteriorated to highway=path. Most of them link
up to many other trails .. one of them is a formal trail some 250 km
long (and yes that would have many 'trailheads').
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
