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

[Peter Elderson]

I think that is the general idea. It can be shown on the map and as object
info. WMT also uses the hierarchy in te information panel.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op wo 20 mei 2020 om 14:52 schreef Daniel Westergren <westis at gmail.com>:

> Right. Naming conventions is a minor issue and not what this proposal is
> about.
>
> Still, if all hierarchy levels have the same name, it will be confusing
> for users as to what's what. But maybe that's something that renderers also
> can do, like Waymarked Trails can add "alternative", "connection" etc. if
> those roles are set.
>
> /Daniel
>
>
> Den ons 20 maj 2020 kl 14:35 skrev Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>:
>
>> Thanks, Daniel!
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> There are no fixed hierarchy levels! One can try to fix a
>> hierarchy convention in one country for one recreational transport mode,
>> but that convention probably would not hold for other countries/regions and
>> for other modes of transport.
>>
>> Hiking routes in Nederland are unusually complex, I know. We also have
>> fallen into the habit of (ab)using the name tag to indicate the
>> hierarchy and the roles. I would like to address that later as a separate
>> issue, unless somebody else beats me to it.
>>
>> For now, let's concentrate on this basic role set.
>>
>> THe RFC is open till at least 2020-06-04, then I hope to start the RFV.
>>
>>  Best, Peter Elderson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200520/00c930b1/attachment.htm>