[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Thu Mar 5 22:35:51 UTC 2020


This issue has come up before in the context of packrafting trail relations.
Closer to home here, we do have some bike trails that include ferry boat
/waterbus) bits. They are included in the relations.
On of the latter is relation 1610889
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1610889>
The coastal part of the route goes via the the Islands Lido di Venezia and
Pellestrina.

Volker



On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 at 23:18, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/3/20 1:27 am, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> Do you know trails with detached sections? We have some in Nederland, on
> the islands. Doesn't fit in the proposed role scheme, I think.
>
>
> How would you get to these 'detached sections"?
>
> If by ferry, would not the ferry trip form part of the route?
>
>
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op wo 4 mrt. 2020 om 23:09 schreef Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com>:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 4:02 PM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Maybe someone could try basic roletagging of ways. I will not do that,
>> because it would take much more time, maintenance and tooling. I don't
>> foresee mappers in Nederland to do it that way, but in other countries
>> putting everything in one big relation is more common.
>>
>> And here in the US, loops and spurs/branches are either really minor,
>> or given their own identity. (Even the long alternative to the Long
>> Path that I discussed is not considered to be "the Long Path", it's
>> "an acceptable alternative recommended to thru-hikers to avoid the
>> Orange County road walk, and for which full credit will be given
>> toward the patch." I wouldn't put it in the relation.)
>>
>> I've managed the relations for two longish trails, and I don't really
>> have much use for these features on either one. I don't object to the
>> proposal, but I really don't have worked examples to contribute!  (For
>> one of those trails, "everything in one big relation" was "a
>> super-relation containing eleven smaller relations, one per county",
>> but that's as complicated as it got.)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://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/20200305/3c215343/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list