[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Fri Mar 6 08:28:16 UTC 2020

To circle back to my question, I would not use something like "detached"
for a trail like The North Trail, because it still is one trail and
you would probably want to have the option to export it as a whole, and to
see the height profile (with gaps but still useful) and total length
calculation. For my collection of island loops that does not make much
sense I think. The same goes for the "bonus" loops of some of the other
longish trails, hikers do not see those as part of the main route. Still,
they carry the same name (verifiable by survey, symbol and operator, are
described in the same paper guide and web site, and are maintained by the
operator ("<trail name> path group") as part of that trail, so on a map of
this trail users  will want to see it.

So, I create a separate relation for the detached loop, and I want to
include that as a member in the parent route relation next to the main
route and all the variants. Then I would like a role to indicate "render
this like the main route, but exclude it from length calculation, elevation
graph and gpx/kml-export".

Otherwise I would probably assign the role "excursion" even though it is
not attached to the main trail. A renderer could well decide to render
excursion same as main, while excluding the excursions from the exports and

Best, Peter Elderson

Op vr 6 mrt. 2020 om 06:23 schreef Jmapb <jmapb at gmx.com>:

> On 3/5/2020 9:27 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.
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> See this section of the E10 in Czechia (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5465693 ) -- there's no connection
> between these three sections of trail, and I don't know if there ever will
> be. I think the E* European long-distance trails have a lot of these discontiguous
> sections.
> In the USA I know of the North Country Trail, which is very incompletely
> mapped in OSM ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8808051 ). Much of
> it is made up of other trails. Unlike other long-distance trails, the North
> Country Trail doesn't claim to be contiguous on a micro level, and has
> hundreds of disjoined sections. It shares a lot of physical trail with the
> Finger Lakes Trail in New York State, but (by my understanding) in a
> conceptually different way: The Finger Lakes Trail aims to be contiguous
> and will consider a half mile (or much more in some cases) walk along a
> residential road between two sections of wilderness to be part of the
> route. The North Country Trail will include the sections of hiking trail
> through both of the wilderness portions, but will not include the road
> walk. When you step onto the road, you've left the North Country Trail but
> you're still on the Finger Lakes Trail. Once you go back into the woods,
> you're on both trails again.
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200306/f8e5bf19/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list