<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/12/2020 10:58 PM, Paul Johnson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMPM96o8WAvbZFp1-Zs3gyFhRZXwM=bs=gnL__T5t7SX=h7Gow@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad <<a
href="mailto:bradhaack@fastmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">bradhaack@fastmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">OK, but it seems
redundant to me. A trail/path get tagged as a path. <br>
There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a
name. Why does <br>
it need to be a route also?<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Same reason all 0.11 miles of I 95 in Washington DC is
part of a route. It's part of a route. </div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes but that's *part* of a route, a route relation with many
other members. Brad's asking about single-member route relations.</p>
<p>My understanding, still evolving, is that tagging conventions
originally developed for long-distance walking routes -- thing
like osmc:symbol, colour, distance, network -- are sometimes
applicable to shorter trails, including those that are only a
single highway=path/footway. Mappers reading the wiki page for
osmc:symbol will be told that this tag is only to be used with
route relations. Some mappers who want to add a symbol to a
single-highway trail might tag osmc:symbol directly on the highway
anyway (Taginfo shows 2924 instances of this) and some might
create a single-member route relation.</p>
<p>Another thing to consider -- for vehicle roads we have a
many-tiered hierarchy from motorway down to track, which assists
in routing and rendering. Paths and footways have no such
hierarchy, so adding them to a relation along with the
relation-specific tags is one technique mappers have used to call
out trails of greater importance.<br>
</p>
<p>Finally there's the issue of software and rendering support.
Waymarked Trails, as Kevin mentioned, only supports route
relations. I believe other hiking map renderers work similarly. Of
course this is not how OSM is "supposed" to work -- structuring
data for a particular renderer or software -- but nonetheless it
is a factor in how people map.</p>
<p>Jason<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>