[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