[Tagging] Route members: ordered or not

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu May 3 21:46:35 UTC 2018

I have ordered a few bus, train, cycling and walking routes.

In principle:

Both bus and train routes need to be ordered in version 2 of public transport (both stop positions and ways need to be ordered from start to finish).

Cycling and walking routes should be ordered for correct interpretation by data users.

On 04/05/18 04:13, James wrote:
> bus route relations can get very complexe if they are not ordered. I 
> order them to make sure I haven't missed anything
> On Thu, May 3, 2018, 11:28 AM Yves, <yvecai at gmail.com 
> <mailto:yvecai at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     Un-ordered route members make it very hard to detect a broken route.
>     Best practice :
>     1. If you edit a route, order it at best and check if you haven't
>     broken it.
>     2. If you find an unordered route, order it, check if broken and
>     try to repair it.
>     Use for instance http://ra.osmsurround.org/.
>     Yves
>     Le 3 mai 2018 17:05:32 GMT+02:00, Michael Andersen <osm at hjart.dk
>     <mailto:osm at hjart.dk>> a écrit :
>         I regularly edit a number of cycle routes (primarily the danish national
>         cycleroutes) and do my best to sort/order the members (it's helpfull when
>         looking for gaps and other peculiarities in JOSM), but have found that it's
>         often near impossible to make them perfectly sorted.
>         Consider for examplehttps://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20828.  Where's the
>         end points here?
>         Also note that inexperienced mappers doing minor edits somewhere along a route
>         cannot be expected to reorder it.
>         On torsdag den 3. maj 2018 07.38.04 CEST Tod Fitch wrote:
>             While I’ve mapped a number of trails most of them are not
>             part of a designated larger route so I am not 100% sure,
>             but I think hiking routes are much like highway routes:
>             The ways in the relation should be ordered. Not sure why
>             you’d need a node in there, especially without an explicit
>             role. If the route ways are ordered it is obvious where
>             the end points are. Cheers!
>                 On May 3, 2018, at 5:06 AM, David Marchal
>                 <Penegal at live.fr <mailto:Penegal at live.fr>> wrote:
>                 Hello, there. I recently worked a bit on hiking
>                 routes, and noticed that some routes have unordered
>                 members. That's particularly noticeable on
>                 waymarkedtrails.org <http://waymarkedtrails.org>
>                 <http://waymarkedtrails.org/>, as it makes the
>                 elevation graph rubbish and useless. I read the
>                 relation:route wiki page, but there is only advice
>                 regarding stops order, and not way members order.
>                 Shouldn't there be a note on this page regarding the
>                 importance of sorting the ways to have a more useful
>                 relation than only spaghettis? By the way, I saw some
>                 hiking relations having a node without explicit role,
>                 seemingly as a start point; is it a generally
>                 accepted, used feature, or only an idiosyncrasy?
>                 Awaiting your answers, Regards.
>                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180504/4aa38e98/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list