Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
Thanks to the 9 or so of you that responded here and the 2 on the Talk page. A few points: * My definition of a trailhead as the point at which a trail begins was a dictionary definition. Others such as Oxford define it a place where a trail begins. I think it is clear from that and from the excellent examples that Javbw gave that a trailhead is quite often thought of as an actual area (sometimes named) and not just an access point, regardless of how we choose to map it. Updated the proposal page with a new definition. * If the majority of points that serve as access to a trail fall within the boundaries of larger trailhead area, then I agree that a trailhead as an actual relation type is definitely overkill. That part of the proposal stemmed from my poor understanding of relations. * Agree that it doesn't make sense to have a trailhead way (open, non-area). I was thinking that the trailhead in the access point definition could actually be a short path, but in that instance it would be either a small area or a node. * I'm intrigued by the idea of separating the trailhead area from the access point. leisure=trailhead + entrance=trailhead makes the most sense to me. That way, one could still map a smaller trailhead (maybe a small turnout and a sign) with just the entrance tag. I saw mention of a tourism=trailhead but am not sure how this fits into all of this. questions: 1) For the instances in which the access point falls outside of the area, could we map a leisure=trailhead and entrance=trailhead and then group them into a site relation? 2) Currently, many maps/spatial databases outside of OSM represent trailheads as points, regardless of the size of the area. If represented as point in OSM for simplicity sake, would it be appropriate to attach bunch of yes/no tags for bathrooms, parking, information boards, etc? One of my motivations is for people to be able to locate and get information about trailheads and accompanying features and it's not always possible to micro-map the separate objects. -geobrando ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
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
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
On Apr 17, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: Is it all about rendering the trailhead icon? For some users, that answer is yes. I have a question about this. Assuming the entrance=trailhead + leisure=tourism model is used, then as long as the path has the entrance=trailhead node named, then the mapping (for visually representing and naming the area of) the trailhead area using leisure=trailhead is fine, and can be named and rendered with an icon, but the area is not needed for the route relation. if someone is getting walking directions, it will include the name of the trailhead and the fact that it is the entrance to the route, and be properly routed to the named entrance then along the trail. Someone is visually looking at the area, will see the area taken up by the trailhead (and the icons for the various amenities that leisure=trailhead encompasses), and see the rendered icon. If just tourism=trailhead is used on a node (because it is a named trailhead, but is tiny and has just a sign) then routing and visually rendering the icon would be handled correctly, right? seems similar to train stations and stop position for rail lines. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
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? -- 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
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
Trials often overlap with other trails, fire roads (tracks) and may actually be tracks for most of the path until it turns off near the top of a peak or goes away from a restricted access zone. The Subashiri route on Mt Fuji is a pedestrian road, steps, trail, track, trail.. Etc as it overlaps with a bulldozer road for servicing the stations, and has concrete and stone steps in places. Every state park I have been in in California uses pieces of fire roads for parts of almost all routes, to the trail is partially partially path and partially track. I have never made a route relation yet, but as I understand it, to link those different parts together would require a route relation. Would making the entrance=trailhead part of that (or leisure=trailhead) part of that be incorrect? Or are we talking about two different things? Javbw On Apr 16, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com 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. 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
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
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
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
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
On Apr 15, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: The easy definition is: A place where you you officially enter or exit a wilderness area on a maintained trail or track *and* there is some kind of allowance for switching modes of transportation. Many 'trailheads' in my area have no additional parking, nor do they have a shelter, bench, water, toilets etc. Some have a sign .. some do not. To me a 'trailhead' is simply a place where I can enter or leave a trail that is officially condoned. Officially condoned is the biggest part. It shouldn’t be some deer trail or a tiny abandoned pathway into the brush, nor does it need to be a place where you can park a car - though in some places, that is almost implicit int he definition of trailhead. Switching modes of transportation may be as simple as getting off your road bike and putting on your hiking shoes - from road/sidewalk “walking” to “hiking” in the wilderness. However, if it is completely unsigned and there isn’t even a turnout, is it official, and not just an unofficial cut-through made by farmers or dog-walkers? This is another great reason for separating trailhead into the point on the way and and an area - the trails you speak of would have a point on the entrance, whereas the Mt Fuji 5th stations would be huge areas with many amenities and the trailhead entrance marked on a pedestrian road (it’s big!). Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
On Apr 15, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: But there are cases where the trail-head has a given and well known NAME. So far I generally tag that on the parking area, but parking is not necessarily a requirement for having a trailhead. The easy definition is: A place where you you officially enter or exit a wilderness area on a maintained trail or track *and* there is some kind of allowance for switching modes of transportation. even easier: If the purpose is to park your car there and then leave the area, it is a trailhead. If the purpose is to park your car and stay there and have a BBQ and play in the creek, it is a park. There are named and unnamed trailheads, but any place you transition from driving, street biking, or walking on a street/sidewalk to hiking in a wilderness area - that place where the transition takes place is a entrance=trailhead. To me, the easiest way to define a trailhead is a sign of some sort signed and maintained trail junction to the normal transportation network, along with some kind of parking area - a turnout, a small spot to get your car off the road, a place to saddle a horse, a place to leave a car and unload a bicycle etc. Up from that is na information sign, nameboard (Wilderness park), paved parking with driveways, water, bathrooms, staging area, and after that it turns into a park - grass, picnic areas, playgrounds, etc. This is why separating the actual entrance from the area is useful - The trailhead might be “outside” the wilderness area - a large park, with parking and amenities shared by the park; roadside parking; a paved parking lot with bathrooms and gate that separates the parking lot from the path leading into the wilderness area. That gate / trail start point - the entrance where the highway=service meets highway=path (or track) is the entrance=trailhead, and the parking lot, driveway, bathrooms, etc is leisure=trailhead on the area. With some places, the “trailhead” is inside the park - it has a trashcan and a signboard as you enter, and a gate from the path/track to the street. The gate is entrance=trailhead, but there is no area - as there is no *special* area for staging, BUT normal roadside parking is available. mapping the amenities (Sign, trash can) are mapped normally. Understanding the last bit - at least normal parking is available - is a great definition for a trailhead. One of the places I hiked in Japan had a large parking lot, but the trail entrance was 200m down the road. there was absolutely no place to park at the entrance=trailhead, though the leisure=trailhead had a lot of amenities nearby. You had to walk down the sidewalk, cross the street, and then start hiking. http://www.gunmajet.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/photo_06-584x441.jpg http://www.gunmajet.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/photo_06-584x441.jpg The “P” is the leisure=trailhead in the lower left. the green line meeting the road at the bottom is the entrance=trailhead. Javbw___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:13 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: On Apr 15, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: But there are cases where the trail-head has a given and well known NAME. So far I generally tag that on the parking area, but parking is not necessarily a requirement for having a trailhead. The easy definition is: A place where you you officially enter or exit a wilderness area on a maintained trail or track *and* there is some kind of allowance for switching modes of transportation. even easier: If the purpose is to park your car there and then leave the area, it is a trailhead. If the purpose is to park your car and stay there and have a BBQ and play in the creek, it is a park. Few lines are that clear. A railway station with no parking leading to a trail can be a trailhead. On paper maps major trailheads tend to be marked as such. The average parking lot near a trail may not be. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
That sounds like switching modes of transportation to wilderness hiking to me! Javbw On Apr 15, 2015, at 11:17 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: A railway station with no parking leading to a trail can be a trailhead. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
On Apr 15, 2015, at 11:17 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On paper maps major trailheads tend to be marked as such. The average parking lot near a trail may not be. Just because it is unnamed (on the map you happen to be looking at) doesn’t mean it isn’t a trailhead. The maps I was looking at Fro Mission trails named the smaller trailheads I thought wouldn’t have names, and didn’t label the 2 biggest ones! Then other maps had some named and others unlabeled. All are trailheads, but not all are named. Javbw___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
On 15/04/2015 12:13 PM, johnw wrote: On Apr 15, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com mailto:bry...@obviously.com wrote: But there are cases where the trail-head has a given and well known NAME. So far I generally tag that on the parking area, but parking is not necessarily a requirement for having a trailhead. The easy definition is: A place where you you officially enter or exit a wilderness area on a maintained trail or track *and* there is some kind of allowance for switching modes of transportation. Many 'trailheads' in my area have no additional parking, nor do they have a shelter, bench, water, toilets etc. Some have a sign .. some do not. To me a 'trailhead' is simply a place where I can enter or leave a trail that is officially condoned. Other things (like parking areas, toilets etc) should be marked with the appropriate tag. Oh .. some of the signs direct you to the local railway station .. about 2 miles walk away. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
role=start is used for crosscountry ski routes relations. Yves On 14 avril 2015 21:40:39 UTC+02:00, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 14.04.2015 um 21:32 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt: +1 I've long wanted a tag for trailheads, and they are commonly mapped on paper maps. However that said I've found the definition of trailhead to be slippery. +1 Is every road/trail/parking lot junction automaticaly trailhead? Or are we only talking about named trailheads? Why not map the amenity/features as own objects ? If it is important for the route relations I rather have a new role similar to guidepost for the starting/end node. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:40 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Why not map the amenity/features as own objects ? If it is important for the route relations I rather have a new role similar to guidepost for the starting/end node. cu fly I agree the toilet/parking/information sign should all be tagged separately. But there are cases where the trail-head has a given and well known NAME. So far I generally tag that on the parking area, but parking is not necessarily a requirement for having a trailhead. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
Am 14.04.2015 um 23:35 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt: On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:40 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Why not map the amenity/features as own objects ? If it is important for the route relations I rather have a new role similar to guidepost for the starting/end node. I agree the toilet/parking/information sign should all be tagged separately. But there are cases where the trail-head has a given and well known NAME. So far I generally tag that on the parking area, but parking is not necessarily a requirement for having a trailhead. Sounds like place=location then. Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
+1 I've long wanted a tag for trailheads, and they are commonly mapped on paper maps. However that said I've found the definition of trailhead to be slippery. Is every road/trail/parking lot junction automaticaly trailhead? Or are we only talking about named trailheads? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
Am 14.04.2015 um 21:32 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt: +1 I've long wanted a tag for trailheads, and they are commonly mapped on paper maps. However that said I've found the definition of trailhead to be slippery. +1 Is every road/trail/parking lot junction automaticaly trailhead? Or are we only talking about named trailheads? Why not map the amenity/features as own objects ? If it is important for the route relations I rather have a new role similar to guidepost for the starting/end node. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
Maybe this is a good value for entrance? Or is entrance only for buildings and related structures? Entrance=trailhead? Also, as I understand it, a trailhead can be the name of an area at the beginning for a route (with parking and other amenities) - or do we cant to make a new area as well - hiking station? Many routes have stations (like Mount Fuji) which are known points, such as the area around a node that should be labeled as a trailhead. I guess what I'm asking is, is the trailhead node related to the beginning of the trail and the area that surrounds some trailheads (formal or informal parking, road turnouts, information signs, amenities provided by a park only connected to a trailhead, it can that idea of amenities provided at an important part of a trail be expanded to include named spots (crossings, stations) elsewhere on the trail? Right now I'm using locality for stations. Maybe putting them into some kind of format that goes with paths and trailheads is a good idea. Javbw On Apr 13, 2015, at 7:12 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: If this is a point then it should only apply to a node. You have indicated tags of information=board, guidepost .. those should be used with the tag tourist=information ... Note .. Relations can include the trailhead node as an element ... but the relation should not include trailhead in its properties. Thus not part of a relationship property. On 13/04/2015 7:22 AM, Brandon Knight wrote: Hello, A trailhead can most simply be defined as the point at which a trail begins. My proposal aims to seek approval for the mapping and tagging of trailheads as nodes, ways, areas, or relations. Please see the proposal for further information. Comments and suggestions are welcome here or in the Discussion page. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trailhead Thank you, Brandon Knight geobrando ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
The trailhead proposal is long overdue. They are common around areas I've lived in the US. They usually have limited parking, signage, sometimes a place to pay, and some even have permanent or portable restrooms. Thanks for creating the proposal. I also agree and thank you for your effort. However, I don't understand why the area around the trailhead, even if it has a bunch of facilities, cannot have those simply tagged using existing amenity tags: amenity=toilets, amenity=parking, tourism=information, etc. Each of these can have its own subtags if appropriate, e.g., fee=yes/no, access=*, or what have you. I suppose marking out an area might be useful in a few rare cases but creating a relation would probably be overkill IMO. I also agree that a trailhead is a place to access a trail from another way, be it a highway or service road, and that while it might be the only access to the trail, other trailheads often exist. Easy to map as a node shared by both ways. Cheers, Dave On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us writes: The trailhead proposal is long overdue. They are common around areas I've lived in the US. They usually have limited parking, signage, sometimes a place to pay, and some even have permanent or portable restrooms. Thanks for creating the proposal. agreed. A node for the location of a trailhead make sense. But help me understand when a trailhead way or relation would apply. I would suggest explaining it on the wiki. I think the basic issue is that people do not conceptualize trailhead as the literal junction of the trail and the road that it crosses. The trailheed is a place with some extent, arguably an area, that covers the parking area and any other associated amentities, and has specific trail access points which are the junction of the trails and the parking/builtup area, even if the trails begin again on the other side of the car road. So it's an area with some specific nodes that are on the way of the area and also on a trail. I would also characterize a tailhead as an access point to a trail instead of the beginning of a trail. agreed, and it's not just any place you can get to the trail, but a place that people are intended to use to start on the trail. (I am pretty sure Clifford and I agree,, but explaining that in case there's a US-centric difference in meaning lurking here.) +1 -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
On Apr 13, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com mailto:g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us writes: The trailhead proposal is long overdue. They are common around areas I've lived in the US. They usually have limited parking, signage, sometimes a place to pay, and some even have permanent or portable restrooms. Thanks for creating the proposal. agreed. Yea, since there are so many public lands wilderness reserves used for recreational hiking - access to them can be inside a park, or just where the trail or fire access road (used as a trail) meets the normal road system - a small turnout has parking, an information sign and a warning about rattlesnakes or mountain lions (if you are in Southern California). I think it would be good to define the start point of the trail as entrance=trailhead - it might also be barrier=gate, and it might be on highway=track, service road, path, or foot_path, even steps. and then have the area defined by the trailhead by leisure=trailhead - as it is all about access for a leisure activity - hiking, backpacking, etc and goes well with leisure=park, as there are some trailheads inside of parks, especially US/state parks with large campgrounds. A single named trailhead can be the start/access point for many different trails. If you separate the idea of a trailhead entrance from the trailhead area, then it is much more flexible, as some trailhead entrances have no amenities (or no amenities beyond an info sign, mappable on it’s own - hence no area), some are in parks and campgrounds, some are in suburban neighborhoods (where parking on along the street is the “parking” offered) and some are little turnouts or official parking areas inside a wilderness park that deserve to have a labeled area as a “trailhead”. examples I know of: a very tiny trailhead in a residential neighborhood (fire road entrance) (entrance=trailhead, tourism=information + information=sign) https://goo.gl/maps/Fhhm6 https://goo.gl/maps/Fhhm6 (Barker Way Trailhead) The major trailhead with a large area, amenities, and parking (leisure=trailhead + entrance=trailhead) https://goo.gl/maps/LrHK4 https://goo.gl/maps/LrHK4 (Cowles Mtn Trailhead) A small park, with equestrian staging areas, with a trailhead in the back. (leisure=park + entrance=trailhead) https://goo.gl/maps/kSwDe https://goo.gl/maps/kSwDe (Mast Blvd Trailhead) These are all for the same massive park. (mission Trails Regional Park) http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/pdf/missiontrailstrailmap.pdf http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/pdf/missiontrailstrailmap.pdf Japanese “trailheads” are often very limited in their signage, amenities, and maintenance (don’t expect a trash can or a fountain), as there are very few local neighborhood day-hikersin Japan (compared to Southern California). https://goo.gl/maps/7w5fO https://goo.gl/maps/7w5fO (trail access to climbing several small local peaks). local parks often have more amenities, but the trailhead is inside a park-reservoir-farmland-forest-wood-picnic_ground (it truly is a mix of public-private weirdness). https://goo.gl/maps/TIr50 https://goo.gl/maps/TIr50 on OSM http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/344006#map=17/36.40289/139.27677layers=N http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/344006#map=17/36.40289/139.27677layers=N (I mapped it last year) However regional or national mountain climbing peak routes are often intermixed with not only parks, but religious shrines (as they are old religious pilgrimage trails), but the trailheads themselves are easily identified (and often have Torii gates) Below is the trailhead entrance for Mt Nantai, after you enter a shrine, go through the shrine’s road, and up an access road, where the trail and the road finally diverge - but the temple’s main entrance below is considered the true trailhead for the route, so separating the two (area + entrance) is very useful, and can then be put into a route relation to connect the different highway=types into the hiking route, as I understand it. http://static1.squarespace.com/static/4fe43e48c4aa351883ffa840/t/52eca196e4b01b7c1a572f81/1391239575149/Trail+restarts+from+service+road%2C+go+through+the+gate.jpg?format=750w Javbw___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
If this is a point then it should only apply to a node. You have indicated tags of information=board, guidepost .. those should be used with the tag tourist=information ... Note .. Relations can include the trailhead node as an element ... but the relation should not include trailhead in its properties. Thus not part of a relationship property. On 13/04/2015 7:22 AM, Brandon Knight wrote: Hello, A trailhead can most simply be defined as the point at which a trail begins. My proposal aims to seek approval for the mapping and tagging of trailheads as nodes, ways, areas, or relations. Please see the proposal for further information. Comments and suggestions are welcome here or in the Discussion page. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trailhead Thank you, Brandon Knight geobrando ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us writes: The trailhead proposal is long overdue. They are common around areas I've lived in the US. They usually have limited parking, signage, sometimes a place to pay, and some even have permanent or portable restrooms. Thanks for creating the proposal. agreed. A node for the location of a trailhead make sense. But help me understand when a trailhead way or relation would apply. I would suggest explaining it on the wiki. I think the basic issue is that people do not conceptualize trailhead as the literal junction of the trail and the road that it crosses. The trailheed is a place with some extent, arguably an area, that covers the parking area and any other associated amentities, and has specific trail access points which are the junction of the trails and the parking/builtup area, even if the trails begin again on the other side of the car road. So it's an area with some specific nodes that are on the way of the area and also on a trail. I would also characterize a tailhead as an access point to a trail instead of the beginning of a trail. agreed, and it's not just any place you can get to the trail, but a place that people are intended to use to start on the trail. (I am pretty sure Clifford and I agree,, but explaining that in case there's a US-centric difference in meaning lurking here.) pgpI7jzanh8r8.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
The trailhead proposal is long overdue. They are common around areas I've lived in the US. They usually have limited parking, signage, sometimes a place to pay, and some even have permanent or portable restrooms. Thanks for creating the proposal. A couple of comments on the proposal: A node for the location of a trailhead make sense. But help me understand when a trailhead way or relation would apply. I would suggest explaining it on the wiki. I would also characterize a tailhead as an access point to a trail instead of the beginning of a trail. Clifford On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Brandon Knight bknight...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, A trailhead can most simply be defined as the point at which a trail begins. My proposal aims to seek approval for the mapping and tagging of trailheads as nodes, ways, areas, or relations. Please see the proposal for further information. Comments and suggestions are welcome here or in the Discussion page. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trailhead Thank you, Brandon Knight geobrando ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
Hello, A trailhead can most simply be defined as the point at which a trail begins. My proposal aims to seek approval for the mapping and tagging of trailheads as nodes, ways, areas, or relations. Please see the proposal for further information. Comments and suggestions are welcome here or in the Discussion page. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trailhead Thank you, Brandon Knight geobrando ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
