[Tagging] relations & paths

[Mateusz Konieczny]

May 15, 2020, 01:36 by jmapb at gmx.com:

> On 5/14/2020 12:07 PM, Mateusz      Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>> May 14, 2020, 16:40 by >> jmapb at gmx.com>> :
>>
>>> On 5/14/2020 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM                Steve Doerr <>>>> doerr.stephen at gmail.com>>>> >                wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, May 13, 2020,                            17:44 Jmapb <>>>>>> jmapb at gmx.com>>>>>> >                            wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regarding the original question -- in                              what circumstances are single-member                              walking/hiking/biking route relations a                              good mapping practice -- what would be                              your answer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Always
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't that violate>>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element>>>>>  ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No.  The route traverses the way, it's not the way. 
>>>>
>>>
>>> Okay. But surely this doesn't mean that every named footway          or path should be part of a route relation. 
>>>
>>>
>>> The bike trail that brad linked to, >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400>>>  -- I've never been there but I don't offhand see any reason to          call it a route. (Brad has been there, I assume, because it          looks like he updated it 2 days ago.) There's no information          in the relation tags that isn't also on the way itself. Is          there any benefit to creating a route relation in cases like          this?
>>>
>>>
>> Better handling of future way splits, consistency.
>>
>
> I can see the advantage of using a route relation as a somewhat      future-proof persistent identity -- a relation URL that will show      the whole trail even if the way is split to add a bridge, specify      surface, etc. At the same time, though, it feels like a bit of a      stretch to declare any named trail of any length as a route, 
>
>
Named way is not enough to be a route.

Named path across forest is just a path. Route would be a signed path through a forest,
with two objects:

- path across forest (with or without name)
- signed route (that has some topology, signs, maybe also a name)


>  might consider explaining it on the      wiki. The current language uses a lot of plurals...
>
>
>
> "may go along roads or trails or combinations of these"
>  "consist of paths taken repeatedly"
>  "Add all different ways of the foot/hiking route to this relation.      The order of the ways matters."
>
>
>
>
> ... which leaves mappers like me & Brad scratching our heads      when we encounter one of these singleton routes.
>
>
> J
>
>
Not sure is it the best place (someone again decided to go crazy with templates), but
I made
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations&type=revision&diff=1991147&oldid=1988978
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200515/ca0740d5/attachment-0001.htm>