<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/14/2020 12:07 PM, Mateusz
      Konieczny via Tagging wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:M7IwG5E--3-2@tutanota.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div>May 14, 2020, 16:40 by <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmapb@gmx.com">jmapb@gmx.com</a>:<br>
      </div>
      <blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
        #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
        <div class="">On 5/14/2020 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:<br>
        </div>
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <div dir="ltr">
            <div dir="ltr"><br>
            </div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div class="">
              <div class="" dir="ltr">On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM
                Steve Doerr <<a href="mailto:doerr.stephen@gmail.com"
                  rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"
                  moz-do-not-send="true">doerr.stephen@gmail.com</a>>
                wrote:<br>
              </div>
              <blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px
                0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="">
                <div>
                  <div>On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote:<br>
                  </div>
                  <blockquote type="cite">
                    <div dir="auto">
                      <div>
                        <div><br>
                        </div>
                        <div><br>
                        </div>
                        <div class="">
                          <div class="" dir="ltr">On Wed, May 13, 2020,
                            17:44 Jmapb <<a target="_blank"
                              href="mailto:jmapb@gmx.com" rel="noopener
                              noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">jmapb@gmx.com</a>>
                            wrote:<br>
                          </div>
                          <blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px
                            0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                            rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="">
                            <div>Regarding the original question -- in
                              what circumstances are single-member
                              walking/hiking/biking route relations a
                              good mapping practice -- what would be
                              your answer?<br>
                            </div>
                          </blockquote>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                      <div dir="auto"><br>
                      </div>
                      <div dir="auto">Always<br>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </blockquote>
                  <div><br>
                  </div>
                  <div>Doesn't that violate<a target="_blank"
                      href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element"
                      rel="noopener noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element</a>
                    ?<br>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>No.  The route traverses the way, it's not the way. <br>
              </div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </blockquote>
        <p>Okay. But surely this doesn't mean that every named footway
          or path should be part of a route relation. <br>
        </p>
        <p>The bike trail that brad linked to, <a
            href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400"
            class="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"
            moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400</a>
          -- I've never been there but I don't offhand see any reason to
          call it a route. (Brad has been there, I assume, because it
          looks like he updated it 2 days ago.) There's no information
          in the relation tags that isn't also on the way itself. Is
          there any benefit to creating a route relation in cases like
          this?<br>
        </p>
      </blockquote>
      <div>Better handling of future way splits, consistency.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <p>I can see the advantage of using a route relation as a somewhat
      future-proof persistent identity -- a relation URL that will show
      the whole trail even if the way is split to add a bridge, specify
      surface, etc. At the same time, though, it feels like a bit of a
      stretch to declare any named trail of any length as a route, and
      I'm not inclined to tack route relations overtop of the
      single-segment trails I'm working on (unless they're long or part
      of a network.)</p>
    <p>As I mentioned, I suspect that a large force behind this is
      mappers wishing certain trails to be processed or rendered
      differently by various third-party software. Regardless, if there
      really is burgeoning enthusiasm for this technique, one of you
      single-segment route advocates might consider explaining it on the
      wiki. The current language uses a lot of plurals...</p>
    <p>"may go along roads or trails or combinations of these"<br>
      "consist of paths taken repeatedly"<br>
      "Add all different ways of the foot/hiking route to this relation.
      The order of the ways matters."</p>
    <p>... which leaves mappers like me & Brad scratching our heads
      when we encounter one of these singleton routes.<br>
    </p>
    <p>J<br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>