[Tagging] Canoe route

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:38 PM Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I tagged the route as a relation a long time ago (route=canoe) but was
updating some areas lately and came across those untagged ways again and
their invisibility began nagging at me. While I don't expect anybody to
actually use a routing service to put together a wilderness trip at their
desk, I want my work to be helpful for canoeists when following "the trail"
as it weaves through myriad lakes, around islands, from put-in to take-out,
for each leg of the route. If OSM-based maps don't show the lake crossings,
how will users follow the parts of the route with the untagged ways? I'm
unsure if such a route will be followable. Does anyone know how to test it
for routablity?


I usually just scroll down through the list of members in JOSM's relation
editor and check for continuity (The 'Zoom to Next Gap' function on the
right-click is also useful here.)

I can't run JOSM here at work so I was going to demonstrate continuity
checking using the stand-alone tool at http://ra.osmsurround.org/ - and
using the worked example of the Northville-Placid, I found that it's broken
at the moment: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=4286650 .
(The 'Analyze on Map' button shows exactly where!) I'll try and get that
fixed over the weekend. (I'm also not at all sure how I feel about
replacing surveyed data with a Strava consensus, but I concede that
individual GPS tracks might be wonky. It's not obvious to me that Strava
would be any better on a little-traveled trail like that, though!

http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=6198495&_noCache=on is
a route=hiking relation that isn't broken.

If you look at either of those relations on hiking.waymarkedtrails.org,
you'll see that they're rendered. The Waymarked Trails site also has the
capability to download individual routs as GPX files. If Lonvia were to add
canoe routes, you'd see them render and be able to download GPX segments as
well.

I suspect that the relation you're concerned with is
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3568086 - which, you can see, is all
there in the database.  It's not going to work using the model that
Waymarked Trails uses, because it's not a single route, it's a whole
network. If you were to break it up into individual linear routes, I would
imagine that it would work just fine, and ra.osmsurround.org would handle
them just fine. RIght now
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=3568086&_noCache=on
shows the mess that I'd expect.  Analyzing on the map shows
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=3568086 . There are a lot
of endpoints. For a typical route there will be just two -
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=5595974 is pretty typical
of what I'd expect a canoe route to look like, and
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=5595974&_noCache=on
likes it.

There probably shouldn't be completely untagged ways. For the portions of
the route that cross open water, I'd probably use route=canoe on the way as
well as the relation, by analogy with route=ferry. Completely untagged ways
introduce fragility, since a way could be shared among more than one route.
(They're appropriate for multipolygon boundaries, and an untagged way that
isn't part of a multipolygon is highly likely to be detritus.)

You could try running https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/zWA to see what others
have done with canoe route relations. (Tracking down the people who edited
them is also a way of finding out who is in that constituency among the
mappers.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180629/8b251857/attachment.html>