On 15/07/2011 18:50, Zsolt Bertalan wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM, fly <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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.
Its not really a new namespace, just a different key. And
hiking_checkpoint=yes is a new key anyway. Though maybe it would fit
better in another key which would be less likely to clash with other
tags, I'm not sure?
Maybe highway=hiking_checkpoint? Or you could just tag them all as
hiking_checkpoint=yes.
> 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?.
I'm not sure what you mean by "tourism movement". I don't think this
phrase is used in this context in English. Can you link to a relevant
Wikipedia article?
Is it more like a network of several different routes? If so, I would
suggest a tag of something like network:name. Or is it the organisation
that runs/maintains it, if so you can tag it as operator.
The individual checkpoints should usually be part of a route relation
anyway, so you can tag the details for network etc on that.
Craig
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
