<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/3/20 7:28 pm, Peter Elderson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+sz3BxaPNs+4PtaCFYhZTfoxyDA38JsaO6SqqEBj8KhNw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">To circle back to my question, I would not use
something like "detached" for a trail like The North Trail,
because it still is one trail and you would probably want to
have the option to export it as a whole, and to see the height
profile (with gaps but still useful) and total length
calculation. </div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Umm "detached" is not quite right? Umm</p>
<p><span class="sb-0"><span class="thes-list rel-list"></span></span>Noncontinuous,
discontinuous, fragmented, disconnected ???<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>In any event the present system will show it as that, even
without any special roles. The problem is that mappers seeing it
may think that it lacks members to make it continuous. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+sz3BxaPNs+4PtaCFYhZTfoxyDA38JsaO6SqqEBj8KhNw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">For my collection of island loops that does not
make much sense I think. The same goes for the "bonus" loops of
some of the other longish trails, hikers do not see those as
part of the main route. Still, they carry the same name
(verifiable by survey, symbol and operator, are described in the
same paper guide and web site, and are maintained by the
operator ("<trail name> path group") as part of that
trail, so on a map of this trail users will want to see it.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, I create a separate relation for the detached loop, and
I want to include that as a member in the parent route
relation next to the main route and all the variants. Then I
would like a role to indicate "render this like the main
route, but exclude it from length calculation, elevation graph
and gpx/kml-export". </div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Otherwise I would probably assign the role "excursion"
even though it is not attached to the main trail. A renderer
could well decide to render excursion same as main, while
excluding the excursions from the exports and calculations.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>To me both 'excursion' and 'bonus' loops would be "alternatives".
<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKf=P+sz3BxaPNs+4PtaCFYhZTfoxyDA38JsaO6SqqEBj8KhNw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Best, Peter Elderson</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Op vr 6 mrt. 2020 om 06:23
schreef Jmapb <<a href="mailto:jmapb@gmx.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">jmapb@gmx.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">
<div>
<div>On 3/5/2020 9:27 AM, Peter Elderson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Do you know trails with detached sections?
We have some in Nederland, on the islands. Doesn't fit
in the proposed role scheme, I think.
<div><br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Vr gr Peter Elderson</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>See this section of the E10 in <span>Czechia ( <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5465693"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5465693</a>
) -- there's no connection between these three sections
of trail, and I don't know if there ever will be. I
think the E* European long-distance trails have a lot of
these </span><span><span>discontiguous </span>sections.</span></p>
<p><span>In the USA I know of the North Country Trail, which
is very incompletely mapped in OSM ( <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8808051"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8808051</a>
). Much of it is made up of other trails. Unlike other
long-distance trails, the North Country Trail doesn't
claim to be contiguous on a micro level, and has
hundreds of disjoined sections. It shares a lot of
physical trail with the Finger Lakes Trail in New York
State, but (by my understanding) in a conceptually
different way: The Finger Lakes Trail aims to be
contiguous and will consider a half mile (or much more
in some cases) walk along a residential road between two
sections of wilderness to be part of the route. The
North Country Trail will include the sections of hiking
trail through both of the wilderness portions, but will
not include the road walk. When you step onto the road,
you've left the North Country Trail but you're still on
the Finger Lakes Trail. Once you go back into the woods,
you're on both trails again.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span>Jason<br>
</span></p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>