Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Additional area metadata to include parkings, trail heads coordinates and approach trails #1101

Open
vnugent opened this issue Feb 21, 2024 · 7 comments
Labels
feature request New functionality

Comments

@vnugent
Copy link
Contributor

vnugent commented Feb 21, 2024

What would you like to be able to do? Please describe.
Currently we have a free-text description for an area and its latitude/longitude (which only makes sense for a small crag).
As a user I want have more detailed information such coordinates of parking lots and/or trailheads as well as approach trail GPX.

How important is this to you (Please pick one)

  • Important

Proposed GIS metadata for an area

parkings: # can have 1 or more entries
- name: P1
  description: Trail head parking lot # optional field
  coordinates: [lat, lng] # required field
- name: Visitor center Parking 2
  coordinates: [lat2, lng2]
  description: 

trails:
 - name: Approach trail 1
   gpx: <data structure> # TBD

Related issues

@vnugent vnugent added the feature request New functionality label Feb 21, 2024
@vnugent vnugent changed the title Enhanced area's metadata to include parkings, trail heads coordinates and approach trails Additional area metadata to include parkings, trail heads coordinates and approach trails Feb 21, 2024
@UvixCreative
Copy link
Contributor

Personally, I would vote that a trail be either link or ID for a "way" or trail in OSM, as opposed to GPX data. I feel like full-on map data for trails is outside the scope of OpenBeta as an application, and as a result it would be lacking in terms of end-user experience due to lack of good data.

However, I do really like the idea of having a field for parking lots or trailheads.

I'd love this to have a dedicated schema (partly for searchability and partly to prompt contributors to link this data), but I would argue this is a relatively low-priority feature request. Reason being that using markdown for descriptions already allows a contributor to organize the description into multiple sections, including a section for access descriptions/links (the way I did here)

@hcars
Copy link

hcars commented Jul 6, 2024

@vnugent I'm interested in taking a stab at adding the parking areas. Is anyone else already working this issue? In addition, to the lat, long fields I think that adding an optional photo pairing would be helpful as well as cost of parking.

parkings: # can have 1 or more entries
- name: P1
  description: Trail head parking lot # optional field
  cost: $ amount # required field, default to free
  photo: # optional field
  coordinates: [lat, lng] # required field
- name: Visitor center Parking 2
  coordinates: [lat2, lng2]
  cost: $ amount # required field, default to free
  photo: # optional field
  description: 

@pamolloy
Copy link
Contributor

pamolloy commented Aug 13, 2024

I strongly agree that this data is already in OSM (see Tag:amenity=parking) and when parking is currently missing it should be added there.

I think this would be less of an issue if the current tiles (i.e. maptiles.openbeta.io) were updated to use either existing tiles or a custom set. The current ones lack topo and cliffs, and also don't render trails very well. The default OSM tiles include cliffs, but not topo. Thunderforest Landscape includes both.

Screenshot 2024-08-13 at 12-30-10 Landscape Developer Preview - Thunderforest
Screenshot 2024-08-13 at 12-30-00 OpenStreetMap

And how it is currently rendered on openbeta.io:

Screenshot 2024-08-13 at 12-31-50 Rumney climbing area

Additionally a lot of people do not realize OSM exists and continuously try to reinvent the it.

@musoke
Copy link
Contributor

musoke commented Aug 16, 2024

@pamolloy, do you know much about generating custom tiles, etc? The tiles you show are a big enough improvement that I think it's worth opening a separate issue to track them.

You may also be interested in the tag climbing:url:openbeta - a few of the cliffs in your screenshot are already tagged with it.

@vnugent
Copy link
Contributor Author

vnugent commented Aug 21, 2024

Mapbox Outdoor base layer does show OSM cliff data. The default Light layer is very simple to minimize distraction.

https://openbeta.io/maps?camera=17/38.03836/-109.54629 (then switch to Outdoor)

Screenshot 2024-08-21 at 2 43 36 PM

@pamolloy
Copy link
Contributor

How to get to the crag (i.e. parking, trails) is as important to me as the climbing grades, etc. It seems like an odd thing to qualify as a "distraction". I imagine effectively no users will know to switch layers to find topo, parking lots, better trail styling, cliffs, etc. Would you consider switching to "Outdoor" as a default?

And it is MapTiler, not Mapbox. A small typo, but very different products. 😄

Is there a way to request changes to the MapTiler styles? Is there some kinda of configuration that could be stored on Github so people can contribute?

@vnugent
Copy link
Contributor Author

vnugent commented Sep 6, 2024

@pamolloy I think we misunderstand each other here.
The map has several base layers similar to other map applications. The default layer, aka minimalist/distraction-free is intended to minimize other features/labels (town names, highways, administrative borders) so users can have a "big picture" visual of where all the climbing areas are located. Feel free to submit a PR to set Outdoor as the default layer.

Is there a way to request changes to the MapTiler styles? Is there some kinda of configuration that could be stored on Github so people can contribute?

We use MapTiler base layers as is. We have a backend job that generates 2 additional tile layers: crags and crag groups, and overlay them on top of the base layer. The styling is done on the fronten. What changes do you want to make to the tiles? Can you please open a separate issue? Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature request New functionality
Projects
Status: General backlog
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants