<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/04/19 08:37, Peter Elderson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+v4biNqA+eoJRnbB5wDFx84oy9XDRY_kV5Mp8h2-L581A@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr">Loose guidepost nodes are a nuisance when
processing route relations by hand or by software. On the other
hand, you might argue that most routes are nothing else than
imaginary lines between guideposts.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But I would say, practically, guideposts do not need to be
in the route relation. If a guidepost is part of a route, it
is also part of a way so the point location is already in
there. No need to add it again. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
A way can be used by several routes. The guidepost may only point or
confirm one of those routes. Unless it is in the route relation it
cannot be assumed to be part of that route. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+v4biNqA+eoJRnbB5wDFx84oy9XDRY_kV5Mp8h2-L581A@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>You could simply take an existing node or add one on the
existing way, add some tags to it, if you want to enable
special rendering or processing. If it's not on a way, it's
also not part of a route. It just happens to be near.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
How close to the way does a node have to be to be considered as "on
a way" ?? <br>
Usually a guide post is not centred in the way but off to one side
so it can be mapped as a separate node that is not connected to the
way, this provides more information and maps the truth compared to
simply placing the node on the way. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+v4biNqA+eoJRnbB5wDFx84oy9XDRY_kV5Mp8h2-L581A@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Vr gr Peter Elderson<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Op za 13 apr. 2019 om 20:52
schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <<a
href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
sent from a phone<br>
<br>
> On 13. Apr 2019, at 12:06, Volker Schmidt <<a
href="mailto:voschix@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">voschix@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> But your example is different. You put the function into
the name field. For me the role of an object tagged
information=guidepost is exactly that, a guidepost. I am sure
I am missing something, otherwise it would not have 50k uses.<br>
<br>
<br>
I guess people are putting the guideposts into the relations
because they feel they belong to the route, and they add the
role so it becomes evident in the relation editor why there
are node members.<br>
It doesn’t seem to create problems, but it also doesn’t seem
to add anything (provided there would not be objects acting as
guideposts that aren’t guideposts)<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers, Martin <br>
_______________________________________________</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>