Deprecate information=trail_blaze? (and solely use information=route_marker)

Reading the wiki page: Tag:information=route_marker - OpenStreetMap Wiki

it says that both information=trail_blaze and information=route_marker can be used. The difference between them is not clear at all. For what it is worth, route_marker seems to have won, its usge is increasing exponentially:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/information=route_marker#chronology
On the other hand, information=trail_blaze | Tags | OpenStreetMap Taginfo seems to have struggled a bit. There is no wiki page for it. Are there any reasons why it should not be deprecated and route_marker not be recommended to be used?

1 Like

Yes. It matters far less what the wiki says than that missing routes (with either trail blazes or route markers) are added to OSM. We could have a long and detailed discussion about what the difference is, but it would be a total and utter waste of everyone’s time.

It really doesn’t matter that OSM has two different values for two similar real-world objects**; it’s the other way around that problems occur.

** and in this case although I could probably come up with an argument why they are different and would certainly be able to tell them apart, with a rendering hat on I treat them the same.

I always thought there is a difference and that’s how I think it’s used in Germany:

I would be in favour of documenting the differences more clearly instead of deprecating.

3 Likes

@SomeoneElse I am nto sure I follow. Are you saying this is a non-issue and the two tags can just keep or that there should be an effort to just agree on one tag?

@whb

Hm, so basically a route_marker has an arrow to it wheras trail_blaze doesn’t?

However, the wiki says that route_marker is often used without direction too. The wikidata definition is for trail_blaze. Thewiki page is very confusing :-).

Forme personally, I do not see this distinction as very meaningful,frankly, but if that is not straightforward for everybody, it at least needs clarification.

I’m saying that in general people should worry less about discussing what tags to use, and whether things with tag X should be remapped as tag Y than they should about actually going out there and mapping more things.

Well, yes, but then when I go out there and map things, I consult the wiki and when it is confusing, it slows me down. Maybe I am weird that I consult it, but the tags are not straightforward on their own, so I rarely can map something new without reading the wiki first.

4 Likes

What could be changed about this wiki page? It gives a recommendation about how to map blazes and directional arrows separately, while also recognising that not all the data has been mapped according to that recommendation. Perhaps the wording could be expanded a little for clarity, but I’m not sure there is much that can be changed in substance.

I’d probably stick to route_marker myself. Trail blazes at junctions often imply a direction by their placement even if they are not literal arrows. And the ones alongside a route that just confirm you are on the route, I would probably never map anyway.

Well, at least clarifying the distinction (based on the wiki, iti s not clear to me at all what is meant) and making a page for trail_blaze as it currently does not exist, so links to it lead to unexpected places.

P.S.: My idea was that this distniction is not important, is ambigious and does not really bring much information, so a decision could be reached to formally deprecate the less used tag. Result would be a simpler world for everybody, but it seems some people see value in this distinction.

1 Like

Ok, I created a new page for trail_blaze a moved the info about their difference from route_ marker and tourism_information to it.

1 Like

what about this?

2 Likes

We could even introduce a tag to encourage this, how about something=yes? :smile:

1 Like

Seriously, I fear that all nuances exist between what you characterize as a route marker, and what you characterize as trail blazing. This includes small wooden boards on a short pole or directly affixed on a tree, that only bear a painted symbol. Creating clear categories seems difficult.

1 Like

I am sorry, but the example is not very useful, because the first one is for hikers and the second one for cyclists.

If i googleing for “trail blaze” (hiking) i get this: https://hikingandfishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Directional-Hiking-Trail-Blazes-480x240.jpeg
And routemarkers for hiking in Germany looking more and more like this: https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.97a1b5082d1c66ae12bb7d9cb1fbc0ec?rik=IQvlHffvX2RLRA&riu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.schildertechnik-paschold.de%2Fmedia%2Fwidgetkit%2F1-Markierungspfosten-mit-Plaketten-eff655fcaecc06fa0d5b1cdf2ec6ad82.jpg&ehk=UdAE%2F0RFm0EABqxGYRbC3VU4lfpP1TIwydkkIbIrAOs%3D&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0&PC=EMMX01

Trail blazes work with combination to direct people and routemarkers guide with there existence or with added arrows to change direction.
So the system is different!

A route marker on the left and a trail blaze on the right:


A guidepost:

you have not said how you would characterize the painted arrow from the picture I shared some days ago.

Ok, then here’s
trail_blaze:

route_marker

and guidepost

of the same hiking route

Which corresponds with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Ainformation%3Dtrail_blaze

However, I think this is an OSM distinction, not a semantic difference in English, no?