[Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

Hidde Wieringa hidde at hiddewieringa.nl
Mon Nov 16 16:52:47 UTC 2020


Route relations 'group' together the nodes/ways/relations that form a 
cycling route. The nodes/ways/relations themselves should not be tagged 
with the name of the route, like you quoted the wiki.

The name of a way should be the official name of the way, not the name 
of the relation(s) that way is part of. I refer to Key:name [1] which 
states "The names should be restricted to the name of the item in 
question only and should not include additional information not 
contained in the official name such as categories, types, descriptions, 
addresses, refs, or notes."

So the question remains for the ways you mention that are tagged with 
name of the cycling route. Are those ways officially named exactly as 
the relation name? If not, I would classify this situation as 'tagging 
for the renderer' (getting the renderer to show the name of the cycling 

On the subject of rendering: there are many renderers that show cycling 
route relations [2]. Some of them [3] are even advanced enough to grasp 
the concept of 'superroutes'/'parentroutes' [4] that are common when 
tagging gigantic routes that span Europe like the EuroVelo cycling 
routes [5].

Kind regards,
/Hidde Wieringa/

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Rendered_cycle_maps
[3] https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:superroute

On 16-11-2020 17:17, Seth Deegan wrote:
> The Cycle Routes Wiki Page 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Tagging_cycle_route_networks> 
> states:
>     "It is preferred to tag the cycle routes using relations instead
>     of tagging the ways."
> If I come across a route that has the Ways already tagged with the 
> name <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name>=* of the route, 
> can I delete the name 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name>=*s in the Ways and just 
> create a Route Relation with the name?
> I assume this is not prefered because a number of applications use the 
> names in the Ways themselves and not the Route Relation, most notably 
> osm-carto.
> However, some benefits of doing this might be:
>   * Takes up less space in the DB
>   * More tags that apply to the whole coute could be added to the
>     Relation like surface
>     <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface>=* and source
>     <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source>=* (like the
>     official map of the route).
>   * Ways with two or more routes wouldn't be tagged name
>     <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name>=route 1 & route 2
>     <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:name%3Droute_1_%26_route_2&action=edit&redlink=1> and
>     instead have their respective Relations. This could help with
>     preferred routing/data usage in general.
> I would propose that /all/ routes and their names should be tagged in 
> a Relation and /never/ the Ways, even if the Route Relation only has 
> /one member/.
> This way data consumers know that all Routes are going to be 
> relations. Also future Routes mapped that share the Way of a Route 
> that does not have Relation, won't require the mapper to shift all of 
> the data stored in the Way to a new Relation.
> Also, if Proposed features/Relation:street 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:street> is 
> ever approved, this would help establish a consistent OSM-wide routing 
> standard.
> *
> *
> *As for now*, I do not think that we should be deleting the name 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name>=*s of Ways. However, I 
> think osm-carto /should/ render and /prefer/ to render Relation names 
> for Cycle routes over the names of the Ways. The Editors should also 
> somehow influence users to map Relations for Cycle routes instead of 
> naming them.
> Thoughts?
> Seth Deegan (lectrician1)
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201116/5fffa9bb/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list