[Tagging] relations & paths

brad bradhaack at fastmail.com
Fri May 15 02:05:03 UTC 2020



On 5/14/20 5:53 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>>>             <mailto: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
>>>             violatehttps://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)
>
So you're saying any path with a sign should be a route.   Should that 
extend to all tracks, and roads of all varieties also?    I assume you 
are not limiting this to 'path across forest', it could be path across 
desert,  or prairie, or town park?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200514/97215f4a/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list