<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 9:19 AM Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <<a href="mailto:bert.araali.afritastic@gmail.com">bert.araali.afritastic@gmail.com</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>
<p>On 23/03/2021 15:11, Mateusz Konieczny
via Tagging wrote:<br></p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Mar 23, 2021, 12:57 by <a href="mailto:pelderson@gmail.com" target="_blank">pelderson@gmail.com</a>:<br></div>
<blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);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.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>As I understand it, a "virtual" path is one that describes actual usage (where people walk, and should therefore be routed on) but does not manifest in any physical way. Thus, a renderer could choose to not render these virtual connections (as they do not physically appear in the world) while routers can still use the data of "people walk across this place where there is no path". Without some kind of tagging like virtual (or whatever it gets called), there is no way for renderers (who wish to differentiate such things) to discern the habitual paths of humans across the ground from physically manifested paths.</div><div><br></div></div></div>