|
I've been mapping out a new "multi-use trail" in our area. I'd actually like to include the locations of the mile-marker signs along the way for reference. My questions are: should I not do this (is this too "trivial"?), and if it do, should I tag them as "information=guidepost" or as something else? For reference, this is what they look like |
|
I'd say yes it worth mapping (and yes use "information=guidepost"), because it has the distance information, (I'd also probably include that distance information as well, maybe in a note tag). It's only trivial if one can not be bothered to map it. It sounds like you would like to, so go for it! I'd say normally simple guideposts such as those that say 'Footpath ->', aren't worth mapping. However in my humble opinion, 'special' guideposts are. 'special' guideposts tend to be bigger or more elaborate than the standard ones and generally have some distance information for hiking or cycling purposes (such as your example). 1
To me it seemed like something worth mapping, but since everybody else using OSM will have to look at it too, I wanted to make sure. (rather than a note tag, I was planning to actually name them, e.g. "KRMUT Mile 12"). The only other issue was that I've seen people advocate "highway=milestone", but that just seems wrong for this. I'll go ahead and start adding them, thanks for the advice!
(16 Aug '13, 20:53)
Epicanis
I suspect that "highway=milestone" was suggested by people who weren't familar with English usage. I certainly wouldn't map this as that. It's also suggested for use (on the wiki page unfortunately) for things that are clearly not milestones.
(16 Aug '13, 20:59)
SomeoneElse ♦
|
