[Tagging] Tagging national/international routes.
pelderson at gmail.com
Tue May 8 06:04:46 UTC 2018
We have trails with their own names, serving as part of a larger (branched)
trail with another name. The parts may have different operators.
Alternative sections and loops are fairly common. Sometimes a section is
closed for part of the year (birds nesting and stuff) so you .need to take
the long way around.
Usually they share symbol, operator, reference, name, website and booklets.
And bloody bad gpx-tracks, usually made before the route was actually
If grouping is easy, well documented and well handled by apps, I would
prefer to use grouped routes for the common tags. E.g. our "Marskramerpad"
consists of 20 sections of the size (300 ways max) recommended by the wiki.
The whole thing is the dutch section of a european route. For that, the
Marskramerpad relation has copy with exactly the same parts, but tagged as
international walking network, withe the euaropean names and tags. That
one is in turn part of the european (super)route.
Maybe this is how it should be done, it works on waymarked trails, but I do
not like the duplication of the dutch section.
I don't care whether the relation type=route or superroute, but I care
about consistency, about documenting a consensus solution, and about not
having to re-invent the wheel.
Back to the original question: I take it that there is indeed no 'best
practice' wiki about how to do this?
2018-05-08 6:38 GMT+02:00 Yves <yvecai at gmail.com>:
> Could be other relations named "Partridge Track Loop 1" etc.
> If a user search for Partridge Track, they'll be able to find them. What
> do they share with the main route? The name, the operator? The signs?
> There's maybe no need to group them in another relation.
> Le 8 mai 2018 02:53:43 GMT+02:00, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com>
> a écrit :
>> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>
>>> I map everything as long as it’s waymarked. If a variant is waymarked
>>> and named, it belongs to the route. It is the hierarchy I am not sure how
>>> to tag exactly. I see type=route in th Netherlands and type=superroute in
>>> Germany for the same type of hierarchy, and both seem to display fine on
>>> waymarkedtrails. What is a type=superroute needed for then?
>> It appears to be for cases like https://www.openstreetmap.org/
>> relation/919642 - where I suspect that I got the tagging Not Entirely
>> I broke the route into segments at county boundaries because the whole
>> thing had far too many ways to be manageable. In particular, it was
>> crashing JOSM at the time, and I switched to Meerkartor briefly to break it
>> up. JOSM has since been fixed. It appears that the Wiki
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:superroute suggests
>> 'superroute' for this type of object. I've not tagged the above relation
>> thus, because JOSM complains that 'superroute' is an unknown relation type,
>> and Waymarked Trails is happy with a 'type=route' superrelation containing
>> subrelations for the sections.
>> 'type=superroute' is not obviously applicable to alternatives, bypasses,
>> spurs, and whatnot - it appears that the route analyzer and Waymarked
>> Trails still want the route to be continuous. The couple that I've
>> encountered, I've tagged as separate routes. I have no idea what to do with
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4836600 where the whole thing is
>> waymarked as 'Partridge Path' with occasional signage identifying 'Loop 1',
>> 'Loop 2', and 'Loop 3'. I, too, am interested in hearing suggestions about
>> how to deal with this sort of beast.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
Vr gr Peter Elderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging