[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Hierarchies route=bicycle)
richard at systemed.net
Wed Jan 2 17:38:09 UTC 2019
> Hello, I propose a concept for contributing cycling route.
Many thanks for looking at this - the current state of bike route
hierarchies is a mess, and trying to parse the many different tagging
practices so that cycle.travel can display them properly has been a
nightmare. It would be good to have a commonly agreed, intuitive standard.
>From the description on the wiki page, I'm not sure how your proposal
differs from the practice documented at
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/help/rendering/hierarchies . Could you
explain the difference?
A few passing comments:
> Example name = Boucle de la Moselle: Toul - Pompey
Please don't do this - the name tag is for an object's commonly agreed name,
and "Boucle de la Moselle: Toul - Pompey" is not the official name of any
part of the route. You could perhaps use the description= or note= tag
There are lots of examples of this in your proposal: "name=PAN Segment 1",
"name=Véloroute 50 : Étapes", and so on.
(Similarly, some people have tagged sections of EuroVelo routes in one
country with the network=ncn tag. This is wrong: EuroVelo routes aren't
National, they're International. I think this is probably a mistaken attempt
to get them to render on OpenCycleMap.)
> To do this effectively, you will need a powerful editor: JOSM.
This is a "tagging smell" (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_smell). Any
tagging scheme that requires a particular editor is probably a bad scheme.
As it happens, you can certainly edit relations like this with Potlatch 2 no
problem and I guess you can with iD too; but before any tagging scheme like
this is adopted, you should create a tutorial for iD users. It shouldn't be
necessary to learn a whole new editor just to be able to tag a bike route -
as you yourself say, "Is the hierarchy of cycle routes reserved for
experts?". Bear in mind too that iD users _will_ edit these routes, so the
scheme should be intuitive and robust (of course, that should be the case
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
More information about the Tagging