[Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Mon Aug 19 21:36:37 UTC 2019


On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 15:40, Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ideally, you should not have to create gpx-s from them and you should need
> no ordering or routing at all, because they ARE the routes. An app or
> gps-device should use them as is, just tell the user what to do next. Since
> no app currently does that (future still has to arrive) we resort to
> transferring the route to them as tracks, i.e. gpx.
>

Now we are getting closer to the point. You are correctly saying "no app is
currently doing that". So why should we sort topologically non-sortable
route-relations members? We have a solution that works with existing tools
on unsorted hiking/cycling routes, and that is routing with strong
preference on the use of ways that are part of cycling/hiking routes.
I see the problem from the mapper's perspective (as I map a lot) and from
the end-users perspective (I very often design bicycle tour routes from OSM
data).
I am not a data consumer in the sense I do not write software thta uses OSM
data, I am an end usere, eclusivley using the software produced by others)
and I acknowledge that  my experience is limited to cycling/hiking routes.
I am sure there are routes that have different problems and may need
sorting, One such category are most likely public transport routes, which
are used in a completely different way.

Volker
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190819/4c046950/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list