[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

[Daniel Westergren]

I think this is really great! I'm creating a site with Swedish routes for
potentially setting FKT's, Fastest Known Time. Getting the GPX file (as
well as distance and elevation) from a hiking route on Waymarked Trails is
usually problematic if all alternative routes, excursions etc. are part of
the same relation.

Question: Will there be any naming conventions of the different levels in
the hierarchy, to make it easier to know what relation you're actually
looking at? I see in the example the parent relation is called "[name] -
main route and variations", with child relations called " [name] - main", "
[name] - variation X", " [name] - connection" etc. If all routes are named
in a similar way, it will be much easier to distinguish the relation levels
from each other, particularly for users who don't know anything about
relations.

Apart from that, I'm looking forward to go through Swedish routes to tag
them according to these role values.

/Daniel


Den ons 20 maj 2020 kl 13:36 skrev Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>:

> Please review and comment on this proposal:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles
>
>
> Definition: specification of role values for members of a recreational
> route relation
>
> The status has changed to proposed as of today
>
> Comments can be placed on the talk page and/or here.  Please note that
> this proposal is meant to get a basic role set approved and documented.
>
> Thanks for helping to finally get this done!
>
> Best, Peter Elderson
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200520/e1f68fc5/attachment.htm>