<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:06 AM Jmapb <<a href="mailto:jmapb@gmx.com">jmapb@gmx.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">
<div>
<div>On 5/12/2020 10:58 PM, Paul Johnson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad <<a href="mailto:bradhaack@fastmail.com" target="_blank">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></div></blockquote><div>And so is that 50-51 segment in the Dutch cycle network. Even if it's a particularly short one.<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>
<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></div></blockquote><div>We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC. It's time to stop treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata. If tools <i>still</i> can't deal with this, this is on the tools and their developers now.<br></div></div></div>