[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Sat Feb 29 22:10:15 UTC 2020


I think the proposal is not ready for use or for voting, but there does not
seem to be much progress.


The basics are clear enough I think.

Though I myself would have made things even simpler (e.g. not bother with
functions like approach or excursion, but simply use alternative and branch
as roles), I am toying with the idea to move forward and start adding the
roles:

alternative, approach and excursion for wellknown hiking routes in
Nederland, next time I do a regular consistency check on the lot. No
role=main, It’s up to me to ensure that one main route is present when alle
the special roles are filtered out.

I would not use forward and backward roles as these conflict with how they
are used in cycling routes. I prefer all recreational routes to use the
same (or at least compatible) tagging scheme. Same with all the other
suggested refinements and niceties involving access, direction, starting
points, POI’s and what have you: I see too many complications.

I would use the roles on relation type members, not on way members. This
way the maintenance burden is low. Most hiking routes in Nederland have
been sectioned and alternatives/branches already are separate relations.

This basic role tagging would not conflict with current usage, and it would
not affect current non-role renderings. It would be useful for rendering
alternatives and branches differently e.g. dashed or dotted.

Worst case, nobody follows and I wil lose a few hours of work. Best case,
some renderers might think “hey, that’s neat!” and start using the roles.
Middle case, renderers test it and give useful feedback for a better
proposal. If this proposal would lead to different roles, I could simply
alter the roles in the course of regular route maintenance.

Peter Elderson


Op vr 28 feb. 2020 om 18:07 schreef Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>:

> +1 for stating more clearly What to map and What NOT to map.
>
> The first goal of the proposal, I think, is to separate the main (linear
> or circular) route from the extras, for display and some data use (e.g.
> export, length calculation and elevation profile).
> Then render the extras as dashed route lines or something, but exclude
> those from calculations and main export.
>
> Best, Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op vr 28 feb. 2020 om 12:29 schreef Andrew Harvey <
> andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>:
>
>> I agree with Peter, it'll probably be better to start with the basics,
>> get that approved so at least there is some improvement, then move forward
>> with the more complicated parts of the proposal.
>>
>> In terms of the role names proposed I noticed that it is a very similar
>> to a schema I came up with for creating hiking routes from OSM data,
>> https://gitlab.com/beyondtracks/beyondtracks-walks#ways. I have
>> role=primary (main), sidetrack (excursion), altroute (alternate),
>> transit_connection (approach) and find this covers most of what you need to
>> represent.
>>
>> Though I think the proposal needs more emphasis that these should only be
>> mapped if these alternate routes,excursions or approaches are verifiable on
>> the ground through signage, otherwise it's subjective based on opinion. It
>> already says "Only add secondary trails to the relation that are really
>> part of the trail route, not made up or other trail routes." but I think it
>> needs to be clearer.
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 21:07, s8evq <s8evqq at runbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> What is the status of this proposal? Should we go forward and start
>>> voting?
>>> Lots of people have added valuable information and insight. It would be
>>> a pity if this proposal yet again stays in "Draft" status for forever.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 10:15:31 +0000, Michael Behrens <
>>> mfbehrens99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hiking_trail_relation_roles
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > There is no unique way to tag roles in hiking route relations although
>>> they
>>> > carry a high potential for the rendering of hiking trails. This
>>> proposal
>>> > was requsted by Sarah Hoffmann on the FOSSGIS conference. A only
>>> officially
>>> > marked trails should be added to the relations!
>>> >
>>> > Role nameExplaination
>>> > *None* or main The main "normal" roletype for the main section of the
>>> > hiking trails.
>>> > forward Section of the hiking trail that can only be hiked into the
>>> > direction of the way.
>>> > backward Section of the hiking trail that can only be hiked against the
>>> > direction of the way.
>>> > alternative or alternate Tags the members of an alternative path to
>>> *main*
>>> >  path.
>>> > excursion Can be used on parts of the trail that leads to a viewpoint,
>>> peak
>>> > or other. The path has to be hiked back again or else it will be a
>>> > *alternative*.
>>> > approach A path that is leading from a town, train station / bus
>>> station or
>>> > parking to main hiking trail or the other way around.
>>> > shortcut A trail that shortens the main trail.
>>> >
>>> > Please write comments here:
>>> >
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/hiking_trail_relation_roles
>>> >
>>> > Greeting
>>> > Michael
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Tagging mailing list
>>> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200229/bb24bc7b/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list