[Tagging] roundtrip

[Peter Elderson]

I think for waymarked circular trails the UK English meaning is not too far
off. The waymarks and often available map/leaflet/booklet/description do
indeed bring you back to the starting point. (Remember the walking_bus
discussion?)

Having said that, I think circular_route is more to-the-point, it targets
the route itself instead of the service. I have asked the Dutch community
for input on retagging roundtrip=yes (for foot/hiking/cycling routes) to
circular_route=yes, and using closed_loop=yes for the purpose of validation.

2018-05-28 10:01 GMT+02:00 Jo <winfixit at gmail.com>:

> I only saw the discussion in this thread, came to the conclusion I (and
> probably many other Dutch and German speakers) had interpreted the meaning
> completely wrong.
>
> The tag is indeed meaningless, as it stands. Especially for public
> transport, where it really doesn't matter. We're describing itineraries.
> For hiking/cycling it's a misnomer. So it would be good to phase it out.
>
> What I'm trying to accomplish, while we're doing that is to not only
> replace it with circular_route, to indicate intent, but to also add a tag
> that validators can use to perform validation.
>
> Jo
>
> 2018-05-28 9:54 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com>:
>
>> Have you seen the discussion on the roundtrip tag [1]?
>> It looks as if there are two different roundtrip concepts in use:
>> For hiking or cycling routes it means that the route you follow brings
>> you back to the starting point with the outwards route and the return route
>> (mostly) different.
>> in a traffic service round trip is often used to indicate a service
>> "there and back"
>> "roundtrip=yes|no" is an unfortunate choice of key as it has wo meanings,
>> mainly ccording to which side of the Atlantic Ocean you are. but its in use
>> about 25k times.
>> It might have been better to have something like "loop=yes|no" for hiking
>> and cycling routes.
>> For bus|underground|tram lines it might have been better to use something
>> like "geometry=linear|circular|..." for transportation routes.
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:roundtrip
>>
>> On 28 May 2018 at 08:52, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From what I gathered during this discussion, roundtrip is mostly
>>> understood and used wrongly by mappers.
>>>
>>> It's also not something about the route, but rather about a passenger
>>> who buys a ticket to come back the same way the same day/weekend and paying
>>> the return fare on the same ticket (aller/retour - heen- en terug).
>>>
>>> So I went and downloaded all objects tagged with roundtrip. The one I
>>> changed needed major clean up in its members anyway.
>>>
>>> So how do we get from a meaningless tag (roundtrip) to something that
>>> actually has meaning for itineraries?
>>>
>>> I think that on the one hand we need a tag to describe what the user can
>>> expect (get back to approximate initial position) and on the other hand it
>>> would be nice (for validation purposes) to know if the ways in the relation
>>> are supposed to form a closed loop.
>>>
>>> hence:
>>> circular_route=yes
>>> closed_loop=no
>>>
>>> for that particular bus route.
>>>
>>> Polyglot
>>>
>>> 2018-05-28 7:47 GMT+02:00 <osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au>:
>>>
>>>> The real question, which as far as I can tell you haven’t answered, is:
>>>> Does that same vehicle, after completing its route, start at the beginning
>>>> of the same route again?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Based on your description, the route as mapped is A1->B->C->D->E->A2.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can I get on at E, stay on the vehicle, and get off at B? (In which
>>>> case I would expect that after finishing at A2, the vehicle goes to A1, and
>>>> you can remain on board during that time. A2 may be (but doesn’t have to)
>>>> an “exit only” and A1 and “entry only” stop).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If yes, then it is roundtrip=yes. And you shouldn’t just remove an
>>>> existing tag that actually applies.
>>>>
>>>> If no, then the roundtrip=yes is wrong and should be removed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Jo <winfixit at gmail.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, 28 May 2018 15:13
>>>> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
>>>> tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] roundtrip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An example of a (bus) route that goes out and comes back to the same
>>>> location. It's not circle shaped at all, but that shouldn't matter for
>>>> circular route.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I removed roundtrip=yes and replaced it with
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> circular_route=yes
>>>>
>>>> closed_loop=no
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the last way wouldn't be in there, closed_loop would be yes. But the
>>>> first and the last bus stops are not exactly opposite one another.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2018-05-27 6:22 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I wish you a happy trip on that bus, hope it has toilets and a
>>>> tolerable coffee machine
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, you sweet, summer child.  Someone's never tried to take a suburban
>>>> route in the US, even in a "transit oriented" American city...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Tagging mailing list
>>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Tagging mailing list
>>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180528/564f56dc/attachment-0001.html>