<div dir="ltr">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. <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. </div><div><br></div><div>You could say it's tagging for the router, 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. As it stands, I think we need to specify where a route is ok and where not, and that is achieved by mapping the links so you can add properties needed for chaining and routing.</div><div><br></div><div>How exactly to tag the linking ways is verse 2. </div><div><br></div><div>I particularly like the highway=path, path=link and highway=footway, footway=link and highway=cycleway, cycleway=link idea. It is very intuitive, stating exactly what is mapped, and it does not depend on any particular physical characteristic. It's still verifyable by looking at what most people do on the spot. E.g. a pedestrian will cross a pedestrian area from entrance to exit, or step over a kerb or a grass strip onto the cycleway or road, even step over a ditch, climb a hill with trees, cross an area of sand dunes to the path at the other side. Humans can do that without help, but currently we still have to help the software. </div><div><br></div><div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Peter Elderson</div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Op di 23 mrt. 2021 om 11:37 schreef Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <<a href="mailto:bert.araali.afritastic@gmail.com">bert.araali.afritastic@gmail.com</a>>:<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><font face="Verdana">I am sorry but I am still not seeing the
advantage or added value to introduce keys or values to indicate
that something is "less visible" or "less verifiable" or virtual
or whatever you call it. I can't fit it in the model that exists
in my mind how we map things, especially ways in OSM.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">All highways, all their connections, all
rivers are virtual in OSM, all routes are virtual. We map them
by drawing and connecting ways across surfaces. A pavement that
stops "early" doesn't mean the path, the route people walk stops
there. That is insufficient completeness in the mapping. Every
highway or lane is mapped with a "virtual" line in the middle,
the "virtual" route people or vehicles follow across a surface,
be it asphalt grass or whatever.<br>
Ferries and boats move across a lake on "virtual" routes, they
just follow a path on the water surface, in many cases not
aligned by buoys or other means.<br>
The same for coastlines, the "virtual" coastline is where the
median is between the salt and fresh water. In cartography many
times just a straight line. You want to indicate the river
connects to the water body and which route boats or ships
follow, you map it, with our present complete "virtual" waterway
schemes.<br>
I still have to see the first example where that doesn't apply
or is not described nicely in our wiki.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">What does adding an additional tag add to
this concept ? Makes it more complex to the mapper, because he
has to add a tag for something considered more virtual in an
already virtual scheme ? What is the added value for the mapper,
I see none.<br>
What is the added value for the router ? I can't imagine even
one? Do you think routers will evaluate the virtual tag, no
they just look at the ways, the routes in general that are
already there. Knowing that it is perceived as more virtual by
some has no added value for the router.<br>
For the renderer, other data users ? Any added value for a
virtual or invisible tag in comparison with what we already have
? I can't find any. <br>
Please show me an example where the current tagging would be
considered less favourable to be used as is ? <br>
<br>
So, thank you for making this proposal, you made some nice
examples which we could maybe add to the highway page. But it's
just examples how OSM provides a bright and consistent way to
map complex realities and behaviour, AS IS. It works, use it as
intended, don't make it more complex by adding tags without
added value.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Greetings,</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Bert Araali</font><br>
</p>
<div>On 23/03/2021 12:38, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>sent from a phone
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On 23 Mar 2021, at 10:23, Niels Elgaard Larsen <a href="mailto:elgaard@agol.dk" target="_blank"><elgaard@agol.dk></a> wrote:
Can anyone give an example of such a sophisticated router available to OSM users?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>the routers don’t have to be sophisticated if you connect highways to polygon highways, it’s sufficient for most cases to route around the borders (will be a little bit longer, but mostly not have practical consequences for the suggested route)
Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</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>