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 ? > 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 Just connect it with the relation to the routes. Role could be checkpoint for appropriate route=* relations. I would use the description to give more information about the place where the checkpoint is located in the pub, church ... > For checkpoint type, I would suggest tagging it as 'checkpoint:type'. > The colon seems to be the standard separator for types of things. Also, > it should be 'electronic', not 'electric'. +1 Cheers fly _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
