[Tagging] relations & paths

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 03:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Any signed route may be mapped as a route relation.
>

Depends how broadly or narrowly you define "signed route."

>
> And sometimes signed route will be signed with paint markings on trees,
> or by piles of rocks or by some other method rather than be a sign.
>

That's a pretty broad definition.  Which is fine by me, because it
definitely
includes footpaths, bridleways, restricted byways, and BOATs in the UK.
England and Wales have specific signs for such things:
https://www.simplyhike.co.uk/blogs/blog/a-guide-to-footpath-signs-in-england-and-wales
Scotland and Northern Ireland also have signs for these things, but they're
different
from the ones in England and Wales.

I've encountered footpaths and bridleways that include farm service roads as
part of their route.  So far, I've mapped the footpaths as the bits that
aren't
service roads.  That renders the functionality of the ways but doesn't
encode in any way that the service road is a public footpath.  I did find
one example of somebody doing it differently: he mapped a bridleway in
its entirety, including the bit along a service road, and also mapped
the service road (which coincided with part of the bridleway).  It
still rendered the service road as a service road on standard carto but
using the query tool on the bridleway showed the full extent of the
bridleway.

Using a relation seems like another way of handling the situation.
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding...

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200515/80e11f73/attachment.htm>