[Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Aug 15 23:18:44 UTC 2019
On 16/08/19 01:01, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Op do 15 aug. 2019 om 15:00 schreef Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com
> <mailto:ajt1047 at gmail.com>>:
> On 15/08/2019 10:56, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > ... So the lowest level always contains only ways, the higher
> level contains only relations.
> Please don't make things more complicated than they need to be. Most
> hiking routes are just a single relation and are best left that way.
> > The ways in the main relation should form one continuous sorted
> (sortable) route,
> No. Don't assume that route ways are sorted in OSM as they
> usually aren't.
> I know, and it's a pain. If software could easily sort it, fine but it
> can't. That's why things that break sorting should be avoided.
> > which data users can extract or link to for navigation or
> planner software.
> Pretty much irrelevant. As long as the data's there, software can
> figure it out.
> Not if there is too much data and no way to know what to choose, or no
> data at all, or conflicting data.
> > Note that rendering routes is not that critical,
> This depends entirely on the use case. As an example, it is for me.
> I mean, the rendering can be critical for the use case, but the order
> and consistency of the ways is usually not critical for useful rendering.
It can be critical for routing. If a route uses a single way twice -
once forwards and then backwards then the order of the route can be hard
for a computer to figure out.
> If it is in your case, you would have problems with lots of routes,
> because almost all routes I see are damaged in a few places. If I
> repair it and come back two weeks later, same thing.
Even more so for admin boundaries the use roads. The roads get edited
and that editing brakes the boundaries.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging