[Tagging] Walking Routes, how to tag alternatives/additions/shortcuts/approach tracks etc.
pelderson at gmail.com
Tue Apr 23 10:56:05 UTC 2019
Rendering is one thing. The other purpose I consider is routing, where you
need to have one continuous route. Currently, OSM route relations are not
routed directly, so the concern is to be able to produce singe-route
I think a branch way or branch route relation with role excursion does not
fit in that scheme.
Currently I make main route relations consisting of either a single chain
of ways, or a single chain of segment routes, resulting at the lowest level
in a single chain of ways. No branches, no shortcuts, no alternatives, no
doggy/scenic/wheelchair/hightide/seasonal routes, no additionals, no single
Beside that, I make a route relation containing all the variants (including
the main route). This is in fact more like a collection than a route. This
one is for rendering, not for routing. Here the member roles make sense to
me, to indicate main vs not-main. I think the reason why a member is not
main is not that important at this level.
Tagging a member segment to indicate purpose (seasonal, link, doggy) or an
attribute such as scenic, looks fine to me. When someone uses the segment
relation as a route in itself, the role is not there, but the functional
If this makes sense for rendering as well as routing and single chain
exporting, I would like to agree on the values for a. role and b. the
Where role should IMO not contain the reason for the segment, just how it
should be handled within the "superroute" relation, and route_segment
should indicate what is so special about this route relation.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op di 23 apr. 2019 om 09:47 schreef Sarah Hoffmann <lonvia at denofr.de>:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:47:35PM +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Long walking routes often have a main route and several additions of
> > various types. If these additions are not waymarked, they are not
> > in OSM. Easy.
> > But often, they are. On maps these are usually shown as a striped line,
> > while the main route is usually a continuous line.
> That´s actually quite similar to the problem of sections and superroutes
> we had previously. They are basically sections that serve a special
> > I would like to enable OSMrenderers and data users to render/process the
> > additions/alternatives differently than the main route.
> > One solution just for rendering would be to optionally add "striped" to
> > colour tag. Or dotted.
> Please don't tag what you want to see rendered. Tag the function
> and then let the renderer decide how to show it.
> > A more general solution would be something like alternative=yes,
> > additional=yes, approach=yes. A tag that covers all the variants, I can't
> > think of a suitable word.
> > the other way around: main_route=no?
> At the moment it is mostly done via the role. This has the advantage that
> you don't need to create extra relations for short sections. Simply add
> a role 'excursion' to a single way leading to that viewpoint that belongs
> to the route and that's it. If the alternative is longer then it is still
> possible to create an extra relation and add this with the appropriate
> For subrelations, I'd still like to see them tagged with their function
> as well, so that it is obvious that it is not a main route (and makes it
> easier to render routes differently. Preferably use one tag for all of
> e.g. route_segment=part/alternative/scenic.
> That leaves the actual functions. For hiking routes there is:
> alternative (1179 times)
> main (945)
> excursion (452)
> alternate (420)
> link (369)
> part (310)
> alternate_route (197)
> access (196)
> detour (150)
> and a couple of others with even less use. That obviously needs some
> sorting out.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging