[Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

Sarah Hoffmann lonvia at denofr.de
Fri Mar 15 13:03:28 UTC 2019


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:07:50PM +0000, marc marc wrote:
> Le 15.03.19 à 12:27, Hufkratzer a écrit :
> > is that a good/sufficient reason to define a new relation type?
> 
> imho nearly no routing tools (nor foot nor bus) is currently able
> to use a relation type=route with relations as child.
> so that's a good reason to create/improve a doc if superrelation is 
> needed for ex for routing (of course maybe some mapper need superroute 
> only for the fun of having a relation that collect all other).
> 
> for ex how a "data user" can detect "it 's a superroute" <> "it's 2 
> route with a shared segment" ?

waymarkedtrails uses the network tag as an indicator. With the
same network tag, the child is considered a segment. If the network
tag is different, then the child is considered a route on its own
that happens to be used by the superroute.

> maybe the tag network should be the same and/or the name (the country 
> XYZ may move the a scope tag)
> the main relation must/should/mustn't/shouldn't have all/some same tag 
> as the child ?
> all/a lot of child tag must move to the main relation only ? (that's 
> what we do with MP : we don't duplicate alls tags to way + relation)
> etc...

The disadvantage of all these proposals is that it is impossible
to figure out if a relation is a route or only part of a superroute
without looking at the parent. That information is much more
valuable than the information that a route is a 'superroute' (that's 
obvious anyway as soon as there is a relation member). So I'd
prefer seeing a dedicated tag added to relations that are just a segment.
'route_segment=yes', for example. Or even better, directly name the
sections, e.g. 'part=German section' or 'part=2. Etappe'. Then we can
get rid of the descriptive name tags.

Kind regards

Sarah



More information about the Tagging mailing list