[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles
61sundowner at gmail.com
Fri Mar 6 09:50:48 UTC 2020
On 6/3/20 7:28 pm, Peter Elderson wrote:
> 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.
Umm "detached" is not quite right? Umm
Noncontinuous, discontinuous, fragmented, disconnected ???
In any event the present system will show it as that, even without any
special roles. The problem is that mappers seeing it may think that it
lacks members to make it continuous.
> 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 calculations.
To me both 'excursion' and 'bonus' loops would be "alternatives".
> Best, Peter Elderson
> Op vr 6 mrt. 2020 om 06:23 schreef Jmapb <jmapb at gmx.com
> <mailto: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.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging