<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 9:20 PM Dave F via Tagging <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Be careful. This is where many contributors get confused. The name
of the *path* is often not the name of the *route*. A route relation
can, & often does, go along paths with different names. Multiple
routes can go along a path. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>To give a more concrete example, there's a rail-trail in my neighborhood called the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail.</div><div>It has a relation, for several reasons that I'll discuss below. Most of its member ways are also named 'Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail'. There are a few ways, however, that have the names of highways because freeways and active rail lines interrupt the rail grade, and the trail follows some lightly-trafficked streets for a short distance before rejoining the grade. Those ways have name='Dunsbach Ferry Road', name='Island View Road', name='Scrafford Lane', name='Iroquois Street', etc, but remain members of the route named 'Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail'. (Actually, there are two route relations: one for cycling and one for walking.)</div><div><br></div><div>Large portions of the rail-trail are, in turn, used by two long-distance routes: the Erie Canalway Trail and the Empire State Trail. There are separate relations for these two, and most of the members of the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail are also members of these other relations. (That does not affect the names of the member ways. The Mohawk-Hudson signage is consistent, while the signage for the other two trails is still something of a work in progress, although there's a lot more of it than there used to be. The naming of the member ways follows the commonest signage.) </div><div><br></div><div> There are a great many member ways because of changes of the characteristics of the way (bridge=yes, embankment=yes, bicycle=dismount, surface changing from asphalt to wood on a bridge, and so on.) </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The Mohawk-Hudson relation exists (a) because not all the member ways have its name (since it borrows roads for short segments) and (b) because Waymarked Trails and other data consumers do better with a route relation grouping all the ways, rather than trying to assemble a route from ways with nothing in common other than being named alike. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<p style="margin:0.5em 0px;color:rgb(32,33,34);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">I
assume this is not prefered because a number of applications
use the names in the Ways themselves and not the Route
Relation, most notably osm-carto.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It renders the names of the paths, not the routes. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<p style="margin:0.5em 0px;color:rgb(32,33,34);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin:0.5em 0px;color:rgb(32,33,34);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">However,
some benefits of doing this might be:</p>
<ul style="margin:0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em;padding:0px;color:rgb(32,33,34);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">
<li style="margin-bottom:0.1em">Takes up less space in the DB</li>
<li style="margin-bottom:0.1em">More tags that apply to the
whole coute could be added to the Relation like <tt dir="ltr" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:1em;direction:ltr;background:rgb(238,238,255);line-height:1.6"><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface" title="Key:surface" style="text-decoration-line:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);background:none" target="_blank">surface</a>=*</tt> and <tt dir="ltr" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:1em;direction:ltr;background:rgb(238,238,255);line-height:1.6"><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source" title="Key:source" style="text-decoration-line:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);background:none" target="_blank">source</a>=*</tt> (like the
official map of the route).</li>
</ul>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Surface has no place in a route relation as it refers diectly to the
path, not the multiple relations passing along it. Similar for the
source tag.<br>
<br>
DaveF<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin</div></div>