[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 
> Could you envision a node passed by two hikes, and being a checkpoint 
> for the one and nothing special for the other?

> 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."

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