[Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles
61sundowner at gmail.com
Tue Dec 10 07:31:32 UTC 2019
On 10/12/19 17:54, Peter Elderson wrote:
> To sum up, checkpoints and trailheads deserve to be mapped. Once they
> are features mapped and tagged as nodes, they can be rendered,
> searched and used as POIs.
> Is it useful to include them as node members in the hiking route
> relation(s) or is the spatial relationship enough?
Spatial relationship is not enough. There may be more than one rote
going past a check point, but the checkpoint is for one route only.
> If included, do they need a member role?
Yes. And that role should be the same as the tag value - so it is simple
for both mapper and render to see what it is.
> If so, would "checkpoint" and "trailhead" be acceptable and useful
> role values?
See the above answer.
By using the value when new OSM features are added it become simple to
add them to the route relation where that fits.
There will be some difficulties .. building=yes springs to mind.
> Would it be acceptable/useful for mappers to include a node in a route
> relation with a "checkpoint" role without any tagging?
No. The feature should be mapped as a feature so it will render (on
those that chose to render these things). Don't hide them in relations.
Note all of this has no proposal. Fell free to make one. I would suggest
waiting until after the route way proposal is voted on and see how that
More information about the Tagging