Talk:Key:guide type
Deprecate this key?
guide_type=intermediary seem redundant with information=route_marker (or information=trail_blaze).
Only 1173 nodes against 7038 and 22106 in December 2021.
So I suggest to deprecated this key and promote and document more the key information=route_marker.
--Pyrog (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that
guide_type=intermediaryis redundant. As well asguidepost=simplewhich should also be deprecated. --Niiepce (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Deprecate also guide_type=destination and guide_type=numbered?
Theses tags are completly redundant with information=guidepost.
I suggest to simply delete them.
--Pyrog (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Types are often mixed
Many guideposts carry a mix of destinations, route markers and/or node network references. In Germany, a completely integrated guidepost system is popular, combining all destination types and route types, for walking and cycling, including the node network system. If the types are, in general, not mutually exclusive, the typology is mute. Moreover, each 'type' comes in very different forms. So it doesn't say anything, really.
If we want to differentiate between regular destinations (usually names of places plus distances) from route markers (which, by the way often have text or numbers: route name, route abbrev or route code/number) and node network destinations (names, codes, numbers, but not usually id's), each destination should come with the destination type. Peter Elderson (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Numbered is not the same as node network , vv.
Node Networks can be built with numbered Nodes, but also with codes or named Nodes, and this can vary even within a Node Network. The system just requires the Nodes to have a label for the user itinerary, matching the Node labels on the ground. So it's not correct to equate numbered with Node Network. Moreover, Nederland and Belgium use these poles with numbers (or codes) for foot networks, but not for bicycle networks and other Node Networks. In particular, "drive by numbers" would refer to cycling in a cycling Node Network using numbers, which is not implemented with poles as shown.
While named nodes usually are unique within the Node Network, numbers and codes are not, so they are not unique id's. They are just labels. The only requirement is that adjoining Nodes do not have the same labels. The node planning system does not require this, but it gets very confusing for the users if adjoining nodes have the same label. It's no problem for the same label to appear somewhere else in the Node Network, in fact it is very common. The Cycling Node Network in Nederland is essentially one big network, and it uses two-digit numbers, so each number appears thousands of times.
Finally, many poles have numbers on them, but nothing to do with node networks; and many node network posts have non-node network markers on them.
In short, the value "numbered" for a physical post type is a misnomer. Peter Elderson (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2026 (UTC)