[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Hierarchies route=bicycle)

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Mon Dec 31 16:52:56 UTC 2018


This is an interesting proposal, but it needs a lot of thinking before we
can consider it a working proposal.

Here is my lost of *additional points* that need clarification.

1) The problem exists in the same way also for other routes like:
route=road|foot|hiking|bus|trolleybus|tram|mtb|
So the wording has to be reviewed under this aspect

2) There is an unresolved issue with bicycle routes, i.e. that, variants
apart, in most cases a cycle route between A and B uses a different chain
of ways different in the direction A > B form the route B > A (due to
things, like roundabouts, one-way streets, one-way cycle paths that are
mapped as separate ways in OSM, and possible others). The only logically
clean solution is to have two separate relations for the two directions
under a super-relation. But none of the (many) cycle route relations I know
follow this model. The usual approach is to include all ways in the same
relation and use the forward|backward roles on the ways that differ. The
consequences for the hierarchy model need to be looked at.

3) There is a tendency to include signposts in the relations. This has a
number of open issues of its own.
3a) with the one-relation-per-direction scheme the signposts that have
information for both directions, do they belong to the super-relation or do
they have to be included in both child relations?
3b) In case of more routes sharing the same string of ways, many signs
(referring to different routes) share the same physical support, i.e. they
should be tagged on the same node.

Volker
Padova, Italy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181231/d6bcb229/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list