[Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles
Warin
61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Dec 9 00:10:40 UTC 2019
On 09/12/19 10:44, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Ok, just asking to make sure.
As an overview most hiking things are on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking
>
> Could you envision a node passed by two hikes, and being a checkpoint
> for the one and nothing special for the other?
Yes.
>
> Would a checkpoint need to be a node of a way in the relation?
If it only relates only to that relation then quite possibly.
If it is a required activity for that route then I would think so. This
would link it to the operator, route name etc, possibly minimising the
work of mappers and reducing errors?
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op ma 9 dec. 2019 om 00:16 schreef Kevin Kenny
> <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com <mailto:kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com>>:
>
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 6:10 PM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com
> <mailto:pelderson at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Is a checkpoint a feature in itself?
>
> Of course it is. A way segment is also a feature in itself, which
> doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be part of a route relation:
> "When you're hiking this route, you'll need to sign in at these
> points."
>
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:checkpoint
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191209/0c2c18e4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list