<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/03/2021 15:11, Mateusz Konieczny
via Tagging wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MWTzoGK--3-2@tutanota.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mar 23, 2021, 12:57 by <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pelderson@gmail.com">pelderson@gmail.com</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
#93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I tag lots of recreational routes as route relations. A
route is a continuous chain of connected ways. In lots of
places I need a linking way to keep the chain continuous,
especially in hiking routes, because there is no actual
official link or path. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>E.g. Often a cycleway is present for a stretch along a
road. Then it just stops. Pedestrians and cyclists will
continue on the side of the road. If the path is mapped, it
will connect, at the end, to the centerline of the road with
a virtual path, to provide a continuous chain for
routing (including "manual routing" in route relations).
This gets more complicated when footways and cycleways are
both mapped separately, which is an increasing trend. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
The route or way doesn't stop, the pavement stops, the separation
stops. The route just continues. Its perfectly OK to map those with
our current tagging scheme. Why would you want to use link here ? A
link is very distinguishable in it's function, use and most of the
time appearance. It's not a "soft" link. <br>
As you say, if there is no clear separate "link" don't use link. But
what does "virtual" add here ? Just use surface tagging if you feel
the need to indicate the different surface of those small links. <br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MWTzoGK--3-2@tutanota.com">
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
#93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You could say it's tagging for the router<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I would say that "there is connection between X and Y" is
actually mapping reality.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And it is often needed if people map footways/cycleways as
separate geometries<br>
</div>
<div>(and it is one of main drawbacks of doing it this way...)<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
#93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>, but it's standing practice to map for continuity. As
soon as routers and the standard OSM track export can be
reasonably expected to deal with non-continuous routes and
route relations, i.e. finding a solution for missing links
which adequately deals with trajectory, access and other
characteristics of the terrain where a connection is needed,
I am all for mapping just what there is.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Note that is extremely unlikely - there are often small gaps
where there is an actual barrier and<br>
</div>
<div>no passage! Distinguishing this two is not easy and trying to
guess "there is connection here"<br>
</div>
<div>would result in massive number of false positives.<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>