I think several valid arguments could be made, depending on what specific example you think of. Most TOPs are one feature (<5m) sporting several functions, by design. In that case it makes sense to add the functions as tags to one node. In other cases it's more like a collection of spearate features, then you would place a node or way per feature and group them into say a site relation. In the simplest cases its just the name banner marking the start of one trail, then you could simply add highway=trail, information=board to that first node. In the basic tagging (just a node tagged highway=trailhead (required), name=* (important) ) I would leave the additional tagging open for mappers to decide on, according to local needs.
The additional tagging I used (both highway=trailhead and tourism=information where I see the TOP in the field as one multifunctional object) does allow query select (overpass) and search (OSM Carto, waymarked trails) and rendering (OSM Carto and waymarked trails). If actual problems occur, maybe one could use secundary tags eg board=yes, map=yes? I do look forward to better tagging consensus, _after_ documenting with the common basic tagging agreement. For the Dutch trailhead dataset I will personally retag the lot if a different tagging is agreed upon. In other countries/regions I think you will find no extra tagging at all in the trailhead dataset. Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 21:56 schreef Tobias Wrede <l...@tobias-wrede.de>: > Am 05.01.2019 um 20:57 schrieb Peter Elderson: > > I can see your argument. > > First question: what's the harm in combining highway=trailhead and > tourism=information? Note: I'm not asking this defensively or to advocate > it, just want to understand where the problem lies. > > First of all I think this mixes two distinct features into one as I > described before: 1) the actual trail access, i. e. a point on the trail or > a highway section leading to it and 2) the information infrastructure > (information board, stele, you name it). > > > Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 12:23 schreef Tobias Wrede <l...@tobias-wrede.de>: > >> I think the thought of the old proposal was to mark the point on a trail >> where to access it, hence hw=. Peter was more going in the direction of >> marking the point where we find information on how to access the trail >> (name, information board, sign, stele, ...), hence tourism=information + >> information=. >> > I think we should stick to the good old OSM rule "one feature - one OSM > element" (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element). > Obviously, the highway access and the information can be very close by, but > pointing again at the TOP examples I mentioned before it's not always the > case. So I am really in favor in separating them. > > Secondly, combining those makes it difficult for data consumers. Unless > they explicitly search for the combination of highway=trailhead and > tourism=information and treating the node separately, they might run into > problems. A renderer could for example display all information boards on > the map. But they might handle all highway elements before in their > processing chain and hence ignore the second top level key tourism all > together. In the end we would neither see the highway=trailhead nor the > information=board on the map. > > Tobias > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Vr gr Peter Elderson
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
