<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 24.11.2021 um 05:10 schrieb Adam
Franco:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMN3sBce1cyC-LFaQ=prAFBWybh8U962N1SDL6WdowmU5Ekj8A@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">As I've been reading this long discussion the
thought that keeps coming up in my mind is that "relation are
not categories": <a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations_are_not_categories"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations_are_not_categories</a></div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">These giant relations are bad, but they are not
categories. They would be categories if one could also recognize
without these relations that the ways are part of the network.
But this information is only mapped in OSM when the ways are
included in the relation.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMN3sBce1cyC-LFaQ=prAFBWybh8U962N1SDL6WdowmU5Ekj8A@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">For this naive foreign mapper, it would seem
that a given town-to-town "basic" route might itself be a
relation (with member ways or nodes guiding between those two
start/end points). It doesn't make sense to make a huge
relation that includes all "officially recommended" "basic"
routes between all communities. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Doing everything in one relation is not a good thing and is not
part of the proposal. But there are these huge relations. We have
to break them down into small, handy compounds.<br>
</p>
<p>The proposal is only about differentiating the purpose of the
ways in the network. Is it just a way that has been made part of
the recommended cycling / hiking network by means of official
bicycle / hiking signs or is it a tourist route? You cannot
distinguish that with today's tags. Thus, for example, you cannot
hide the relations without tourist routes in tourist maps.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMN3sBce1cyC-LFaQ=prAFBWybh8U962N1SDL6WdowmU5Ekj8A@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">I may be misunderstanding what is being
suggested, but instead of huge relations with thousands of
members, how about defining a simple tag/tags that can be
applied to highway ways that are officially recommended?
`bicycle=designated` is an access rule, but maybe something
like `bicycle_usage=recommended` or any other keys/values that
get at the heart of what is being recommed.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That is exactly what the proposal aims to do. I want to be able
to tag that the way is part of an officially recommended cycling /
hiking network. I have suggested both a simple key for the path
itself and a key for relations. It doesn't matter to me whether it
is represented by a relation or by a tag on the way. Both are
there, so I need a solution for both.<br>
</p>
<p>However, it turned out that the proposed key is not
self-explanatory. Therefore there will be a revised proposal.
Maybe <i>'route:purpose=basic_network'</i>.<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>