[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

s8evq s8evq at runbox.com
Sat Dec 7 17:00:22 UTC 2019


Well, I don't know really. For me either solutions are OK. But reading the discussion here, I think it seems like the topic of superrelations is controversial and most people would apply the newly proposed roles on ways within a relation....?

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 13:16:58 +0000, Michael Behrens <mfbehrens99 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> So you would also put a short excursion into a new relation and have this
> as a seperate relation?
> 
> Of couse, I see the point you want to make. This really makes sense when we
> look at long alternative routes or approaches.
> Would you then put all the relations into a superroute or still into new
> routes?
> 
> Michael
> 
> Am Fr., 6. Dez. 2019 um 11:51 Uhr schrieb s8evq <s8evq at runbox.com>:
> 
> > Interesting proposal.
> >
> > I think it would be useful to also add to the proposal how we structure
> > these hiking relations.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > 1) Do you put the individual ways of an alternative into the main
> > relation, with each member way of this alternative route assigned role
> > 'alternative'. (for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9214075
> > )
> >
> > 2) Or do you make a separate relation for the alternative, and add this
> > relation to a super relation containing a main relation and the alternative
> > relation. Then assign the member roles on relation level?
> > (what Peter Elderson kind of does in this example:
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9514645 collecting all variations,
> > approaches and shortcuts in a super relation, but without assigning the
> > roles)
> >
> > Or would both methods be accepted?
> >
> > Personally, I find method 2 a bit more practical for mapping.
> >
> > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 10:15:31 +0000, Michael Behrens <mfbehrens99 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hiking_trail_relation_roles
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There is no unique way to tag roles in hiking route relations although
> > they
> > > carry a high potential for the rendering of hiking trails. This proposal
> > > was requsted by Sarah Hoffmann on the FOSSGIS conference. A only
> > officially
> > > marked trails should be added to the relations!
> > >
> > > Role nameExplaination
> > > *None* or main The main "normal" roletype for the main section of the
> > > hiking trails.
> > > forward Section of the hiking trail that can only be hiked into the
> > > direction of the way.
> > > backward Section of the hiking trail that can only be hiked against the
> > > direction of the way.
> > > alternative or alternate Tags the members of an alternative path to
> > *main*
> > >  path.
> > > excursion Can be used on parts of the trail that leads to a viewpoint,
> > peak
> > > or other. The path has to be hiked back again or else it will be a
> > > *alternative*.
> > > approach A path that is leading from a town, train station / bus station
> > or
> > > parking to main hiking trail or the other way around.
> > > shortcut A trail that shortens the main trail.
> > >
> > > Please write comments here:
> > >
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/hiking_trail_relation_roles
> > >
> > > Greeting
> > > Michael
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Tagging mailing list
> > > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging





More information about the Tagging mailing list