[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
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.

-------------- 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