[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Route=worship

Tijmen Stam mailinglists at iivq.net
Mon Jan 18 22:14:47 UTC 2016

On 17-01-16 21:30, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> Tijmen Stam wrote on 2016/01/17 00:56:
>> Dear All,
>> I am sending this RFC in order to receive some feedback regarding my
>> OSM feature proposal for route=worship.
> I'd prefer to keep the value of 'route' restrained to the mode of
> locomotion,
> not its purpose.

Thanks for this insight, I never considered that this was the case. I 
think relation:worship=route is a dud, as there are probably not many 
more worship relations.
So it should be X=worship. What would you suggest for X? An "Amenity" 

> Thus keep them route=hiking (66734), route=foot (26974),

So what's the difference between route=hiking and route=foot?
And what if the relation can be done with a multitude of modes?

Thinking about it, maybe route isn't a good relationship type as, in my 
proposal, I allow the relationship to be without the actual route, just 
the order of points: Stops are mandatory, route (ways) are optional.

Any suggestion?

> and tag the purpose in a separate qualifier, such as those already
> suggested
> worship=yes, pilgrimage=yes, plus pilgrimage:dedication=SaintX,
> worship:religion=*

> I agree with the proposer that amenity=place_of_worship should not be
> used on
> these routes, however not because they are relations, but because these
> routes are not amenities.

If you think like that, then a wayside cross isn't an amenity either.

More information about the Tagging mailing list