Copying from an earlier response: Designated starting point for multiple routes into a nature area. There is a designed marking pole or stele, information boards, seats or benches, free parking space nearby. This one is in a small village: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.4336993,6.834158,3a,75y,191.07h,84.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sby0P5NTeyqR3fyrgDNqCOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl
Here is another one, with emphasis on Parking. On the left behind the parking is the actual access point to the trails. https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.6284198,5.0889629,3a,76.4y,32.53h,96.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy3HdYWJ2zZ1rw1ozqJyrXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl The operators are governmental bodies. They publish the lists on recreation websites. Each province has its own list. VVV of course lists/presents them as well. These points are designed for trail access. Some other examples have been mailed by others, I thought? Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 19:44 schreef Kevin Kenny <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 AM Peter Elderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sometimes it would, sometimes it would not. If the node actually > represents the start of the trail, it is already in the relation because it > is part of the way that belongs to the route. In the situation that a > trailhead node represents a named cluster of helpful facilities/amenities > in the vicinity of several trails or networks, you wouldn't want to add it > to all the relations, because a. it's not actually part of the routes and > b. maintenance of all the routes would be quite error-prone and not really > intuitive. > > > > A site relation has been suggested for the more complex trailheads. You > would include the node there, the parking(s), the information booth or > guide stands, maybe PT-stops, possibly the route relations you can access > from the site... > > > > Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way of > more complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element which > supports all the other options. > > At the risk of repeating myself: > > I think I'd need more concrete examples before I'd support such a > proposal. I think that we have people in this conversation with > different cultural expectations of what a 'trailhead' is. My > northeastern-US definition is, "anywhere that you get on and off a > trail", so usually there's parking, and perhaps a notice board or a > register book to sign, but I don't expect many more amenities than > that, and sometimes not even those. It may happen that a trailhead is > in a developed facility in a park (such as a ranger station, > recreation ground, campground or visitors' center), or even in a > populated place, but in that case I think of the amenities as > associated with the other facility and not with the trailhead. > (Except, of course, for the trail-specific ones such as notice boards, > signposts and registers!) > > If what's under consideration is 'a NAMED place to get on and off a > trail,' then I know of only a handful of trailheads anywhere me that > have names other than the names of geographic features that they're > near. (The "Route 23 trailhead" or the "Roaring Brook trailhead" are > typical - they are simply informal descriptions, not real names.) > There are a handful of exceptions, like 'Sled Harbor' (near 42.5237 N > 74.5629 W) or 'Elk Pen' > (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1305445030) but they are actually > described well by place=locality, since they name the place, not the > trailhead. Historically, Elk Pen was where rail tycoon E.H. Harriman > kept the elk for his private hunting preserve, and Sled Harbor was > where loggers stored their sledges in the summer months. 'Named > uninhabited place' is a good description of these. > > If 'trailhead' degenerates into 'any intersection of a trail and a > highway' (which is what it is in that National Park Service database) > then it's kind of redundant. It appears to me that the Europeans have > a more specific idea of what a 'trailhead' is - but I don't quite > understand that idea, and I suspect that's because there are no > trailheads of that sort near me, despite the fact that I'm within an > hour's drive of hundreds of hiking trails, including a handful of 'big > name' long-distance ones. > > I'm not against the proposal, necessarily, but I'm far from convinced > that everyone is reading from the same page, and I'd like to avoid the > risk of a false consensus. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Vr gr Peter Elderson
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
