I couldn't find anything better than tourism movement. I realise that although in english it is frequently used, it has a more general meaning, like propagation of countryside tourism, hiking, etc. I found "hiker's movement", but also only on Hungary related pages. Is this any better? I think you would think of a moving hiker hearing that. But tourism movements (literal translation) do exist in Hungary. Any organisation or association can start a tourism movement (TM). A TM usually has a brochure and checkpoints for the validation of completion. Most TMs have a designated route, but there are also TMs that require visiting all checkpoints in any order from any direction. Like all the castles and springs of a mountain range. So a TM is not an organisation, not a route and not a network of routes. If you can't think of any better then we should stick with TM.
I don't want checkpoints to be part of a relation. I see a hiking route as a series of consecutive tracks and paths. Checkpoints are usually on a short detour on the wayside, or in a nearby building or in the nearest train station. They are not exactly on the route. Zsolt Herrbert74 On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Craig Wallace <craig...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > On 15/07/2011 18:50, Zsolt Bertalan wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM, fly <lowfligh...@googlemail.com >> <mailto:lowflight66@**googlemail.com <lowfligh...@googlemail.com>>> >> 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<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 > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
