[Tagging] Tagging national/international routes.

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Tue May 8 09:02:33 UTC 2018


I'm also not sure if it's correct to add nodes to a walking or cycling
route. There is one reference on a Dutch wiki page that you can, to mark
start/stop places on a route, but I think JOSM rejects that.

Also found a remark that you can or should add nodes to hiking superroutes
at connecting points (e.g. at a border), that's not correct is it?

2018-05-08 8:04 GMT+02:00 Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>:

> 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 rolled out..
> 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.
>> Yves
>>
>> 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>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>> Right.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Yves
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180508/1ecdb5d0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list