<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>May 15, 2020, 04:05 by bradhaack@fastmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="">On 5/14/20 5:53 PM, Mateusz Konieczny
via Tagging wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>May 15, 2020, 01:36 by <a href="mailto:jmapb@gmx.com" class="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">jmapb@gmx.com</a>:<br></div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;" class="tutanota_quote"><div class="">On 5/14/2020 12:07 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via
Tagging wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>May 14, 2020, 16:40 by <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="" 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">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">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">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">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.<br></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, <br></p></blockquote><div>Named way is not enough to be a route.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Named path across forest is just a path. Route would be a
signed path through a forest,<br></div><div>with two objects:<br></div><div><br></div><div>- path across forest (with or without name)<br></div><div>- signed route (that has some topology, signs, maybe also a
name)<br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div>So you're saying any path with a sign should be a route. Should
that extend to all tracks, and roads of all varieties also? I
assume you are not limiting this to 'path across forest', it could
be path across desert, or prairie, or town park?<br></div><div> <br></div></blockquote><div>Any signed route may be mapped as a route relation.<br></div><div><br></div><div>But in many cases there will be a sign, without a route. "Beware of a dog" sign<br></div><div>does not mean that there is a route there.<br></div><div><br></div><div>And sometimes signed route will be signed with paint markings on trees,<br></div><div>or by piles of rocks or by some other method rather than be a sign.<br></div><div><br></div> </body>
</html>