[Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)
pelderson at gmail.com
Fri Aug 16 11:31:23 UTC 2019
Looked at de E2 relation in Yorkshire. It would require a lot of work to
make it work for data users beside rendering, and to fit it into the E2
superroute as a whole.
a. Nodes in the relation - not unheard of, but then with a role like start.
Should be removed.
b. 10 gaps. Needs investigating the cause; some just reflect wrong order.
c. There are a bunch of sorted chains of ways. Maybe just a sorting
problem, maybe more. Simple sort doesn't work because of the nodes and
d. Contains ways and other route relations. The other routes appear to
belong to another main variant running far to the west through Yorkshire.
These should be separately checked, sorted, oriented and repaired, and then
moved to a separate relation, in the right order (north to south).
The eastern and western variants separate in Scotland, then run separately
through England. The east route is the one that connects to the european E2
which follows the GR5 to Nice.
The E2 has occasional signs all along the route, but the regular waymarking
is that of the constituting trails. I think that is enough to say it's
Anybody knows who is mapping routes in England, knows his relation stuff,
and wants to fix this?
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op vr 16 aug. 2019 om 12:09 schreef Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>:
> Op vr 16 aug. 2019 om 10:59 schreef Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com>:
>> On 16/08/2019 08:50, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> > Josm of course. Is there another relation editor that can handle large
>> nested route relations spanning up to say 4000 Km?
>> P2 can, at least. Other people seem to suggest that iD does a
>> reasonable job now too.
> Sorry to disagree. P2 and ID are aware of relations and can do a few basic
> things like adding/removing a way and shifting a way up and down, in one
> relation at a time. If you maintain a lot of long distance routes, that is
> painfully inadequate. Even more so if you try to do it in a way that
> prepares the relations for data users, currently meaning linear and gapless
> gpx-es for use in navigation software, elevation profiles, and trip
> planners. You need validation, gap detection, multiple relation windows
> with shifting between windows, sorting, jump to first/last member,
> direction reverse, download all members even those not in the bbox, ...
>> The more interesting question, though, is "why do you want walking route
>> relations to be sorted". The point that's already been made about
>> routes that use the same way twice is a valid one, but almost never
>> applies to walking route relations. What are you trying to do with e.g.
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1976184 (the part of E2* that
>> runs through Yorkshire) if it's not sorted?
>> If it's not sorted: display only. If I want to walk it, I want to use
> OsmAnd navigation and or Garmin navigation. OsmAnd and Garmin currently
> cannot use the relation directly, so I have to use a gpx, and they
> recalculate the route for navigation. The gpx needs to be continous, sorted
> and gapless, or it won't work. Overpass and Waymarkedtrails can export to a
> routable gpx, if the relation is one sorted and continous chain of ways.
> So before exporting, I use JOSM relation editor, load the entire thing,
> solve all gaps en remove duplications, move alternatives one or more
> separate relations, then export the main route as gpx.
> I also notify the operator of the website
> so he can use the export for his trip planner. If he could depend on
> routes to be flawless in OSM he could connect directly to it for automatic
> periodical refresh.
> If the route is on that planner, I would probably use that first to plan
> the trip and route according to train and bus stations, hotels & B&B's, and
> places on the way, then export the trip gpx from that planner.
> I will actually have a look at the E2 Yorkshire thing after lunch. I can
> repair technical problems. If I need local survey I can probably not fix it
> completely. Have to look at the history as well, don't want to offend
> mappers over there with foreign ideas.
> Best Regards,
>> * There are actually many other things wrong with that relation. It's
>> not signed, so in a since here it "does not exist" but at the very least
>> it should be tagged as such. Also it's actually defined here in terms
>> of the Wolds Way (which is signed), not in terms of individual paths. I
>> also doubt that the LDWA is in any sense an "operator".
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging