I think your definition is fine. If it's worth listing/searching/displaying the places, then map them, else do not.
We have these official places called TOPs, the things I listed are necessary to be officially called a TOP (and funded & maintained). They are not requirements for mapping and are not part of my general tagging proposal. If mappers see other hop-on places for trails/routes which do not meet these requirements but are visibly designated/designed for the purpose and worth listing/searching/displaying, fine with me. In Nederland, mappers have been mapping these places, just not systematically. Now they have all been mapped. Op do 3 jan. 2019 om 04:07 schreef Kevin Kenny <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 7:26 PM Peter Elderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > The minimum requirements here are: free parking space, some kind of > landmark, at least 2 bicycle routes and two walking routes, and an > information board or stand. And waymarks for route directions. > > None of the examples I posted meet all your requirements. Most > trailheads here are served by only short access trails, while the main > trails stay off road, so most trailheads serve either a single route > or else the entire trail network depending on definitions. Moreover, > there are relatively few entry points that serve both walking and > cycling routes. (We have a paucity of MTB routes on the whole.) > > The only trailhead that I can think of that I've visited in recent > years that would meet your criteria serves a rather small natural area > and maybe 20 km of trail that's otherwise disconnected from the trail > network (except that the Erie Canalway, a paved > shared-foot-and-cycleway, runs down one side). And that in turn means > that the Erie Canalway has a trailhead sort of by accident - because > it happens to be right there. > > Most of our major national and regional trails simply aren't served by > that sort of facility. To give the example of one intermediate-scale > trail (220 km) that I've mapped, > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4286650, it visits > car-accessible highways fewer than ten times. Only one has another > trail at the same access point, unless you count the short footways in > the campground at Lake Durant. The two ends of the trail are in > villages, and one section in the middle has about a 5-km road-walk > through another village. Aside from those and the campground, the > trailheads consist of notice boards and registers at the crossings of > remote mountain roads. There are two sections that are each over 60 > km long that have no road crossings at all. > > The two endpoints, as I said, are in villages, and are more > extensively marked; the southern terminus has the arch that I shared > earlier and ends at a village park that has toilets, and is behind a > commercial street that has various businesses. The northern terminus > is at a former railway station that is now a museum, and again has > many businesses close by. Neither terminus is a jumping-off point for > multiple other trails. > > This is a trail of extensive regional significance. Not dignifying the > getting-on and getting-off points with the 'trailhead' tag, if we have > a 'trailhead' tag, seems a little parochial. (It'll also invite > further mistagging by us Americans, which will cause further arguments > on this mailing list down the road.) > > Our definition would be much simpler: "designated point at which a > hiker, skier, cyclist, rider or snowmobilist gets on and off a > waymarked trail." Usually, but not always, a trailhead will have > dedicated parking (which may or not be free of charge), a notice board > and signage. More elaborate trailheads may have facilities such as > artwork or stelae marking them, seating, rubbish bins, toilets, and > public transportation access, particularly if they are located in > developed parks or campgrounds. Facilities such as these are > considerably rarer in trails that access "back country" or wilderness > areas. > > I submit that the additional requirements you enumerate reflect a > European cultural assumption. Europe is much denser than the US. Its > trails are shorter. Its trailheads are closer to civilization, with > facilities to match. > > The Adirondack Park, through which > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4286650 runs, is about 24000 > km² - an area intermediate in size between Slovenia and Belguim - with > a population density of fewer than 5 inhabitants/km². (The density is > that high because it's a public-private partnership. There are [highly > regulated] settlements and villages inside the park.) It is too sparse > to support the sort of facilities that you have in mind, and there's > no need to run trails to common points of concentration. The trails go > where they go, and many never reach the highway at all, starting and > finishing on other trails. Because of the long distances covered by > the trail network, the trailheads assume greater importance, not less, > despite their lack of facilities. I once sprained a knee about 25 km > from the nearest highway - you can be sure that I was acutely aware of > where the nearest trailhead was, even though it took me a day and a > half to hobble there. Knowing where your alternative exit points are > and how to reach them is an essential part of route planning. > > The parks also have a few access points that don't have trails at all, > but are merely parking areas for hikers and climbers who are willing > and able to make their own way cross-country. They have register books > and notice boards, but no trails. I'm not sure what to make of them in > this scheme of things, but can tag the parking area and notice board > at least. (I don't think that any proposal for tagging a register book > ever gained traction.) > > _______________________________________________ > 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
