Let say you walk on a path and that specific path leads to a viewpoint. Let’s take this Node: 10548845659 | OpenStreetMap . Would you rather tag it as :
Separate from the path?
Directly on the path?
What’s the consensus on that topic as most of the viewpoints are directly on a path or very close to it.
if you stand on path while using viewpoint I would make it vertex of a path (directly on a path), no need or benefit to detach it
it looks like iD presets (of online editor) even support it specially
There will always be edge cases, but I typically put the tourism=viewpoint tag directly on the last node of the highway=*.
I’m wondering whether a viewpoint should be tagged directly on the path or as a separate feature?
it would be better as a new thread
what you exactly mean by “tagged directly on the path”? That viewpoint node is also a vertex of a path?
Making a new thread. Should tourism=viewpoint be tagged on path directly?
I usually add a new node slightly off the path, because I assume it will be more visibly rendered by most renderers. I’m not sure if my assumption is correct though
I also do not see the need to make the viewpoint a part of the path, but it wouldn’t be a problem either if it was mapped like this. Generally, I would see both features unrelated.
as far as I know, this is not happening at all
also, if viewpoint is directly on path rather than next to it (you do not leave path to admire views), it sounds like a mild case of mistagging for the renderer
Should be interesting to test as it’s an important point.
Here’s a node : Node: 11212429865 | OpenStreetMap
Given the inherent uncertainty of where things are (GPS inaccuracy, etc.) and that the view is probably equally good right next to the path than on it, I don’t think this matters.
I must admit it’s also a case of tagging for iD (and other iD users), because adding tourism=viewpoint to a node belong to a path in iD just gives it a little black dot, while adding it to a separate node gives it its own clear symbol.
well, if I am mapping based on survey and I know that where viewpoint is, why not map it in its actual location?
and path will typically lead toward viewpoint, sometimes some dedicated additional one - rather than ending before it or going around it
no, it gets proper icon in both cases, iD supports it both as a standalone node and as a vertex within way. And such tagging for ID is definitely mistagging for the renderer.
to repeat earlier example:
Given that a viewpoint location is usually a few meters in size, and the accuracy of GPS position and aerial imagery alignment is also a few meters, I don’t think it matters if you map a viewpoint right on the path or a meter away from it. If the path is sufficiently wide, it might still be on the actual area of the path.
Depends on the zoom level
(3 viewpoints at zoom level 16; I prefer to map it like the left one, which is 1-2 meters from the final node of the path)
I think a viewpoint POI always connects to a path. How else would you get there?
It might be in the middle of a meadow or rocky field, with no visible path leading to it. Opinions diverge on whether you could then map a path (with trail_visibility=no) to it.
The subject is about paths leading to viewpoints, isn’t it? In my experience you can almost always clearly see a path, because many people follow the logical route, which creates a visible path.
come on, a “viewpoint” is hardly ever just a point, if you look close these are most of the time areas, and whether you place your node a tad more left or right is usually an arbitrary decision
I feel like the most important thing would be the visibility on the renderer. I haven’t been able to see how many are tagged on paths with tag ingo (see: tourism=viewpoint | Tags | OpenStreetMap Taginfo )
Here’s some other node tagged as viewpoints to test :
This one’s interesting as the peak is also tagged as a viewpoint.
