[Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

Seth Deegan jayandseth at gmail.com
Mon Nov 16 17:13:47 UTC 2020

Honestly I think I'm just confused.
I guess ways *do have* official names, it's just that I keep on thinking
about the possible *conceptual* conflicts between two different Routes
under one way (this statement probably doesn't make sense).

Also, I'm someone who loves relations and finds myself thinking about
putting all of the elements that share a tag under a relation constantly!
I guess just keeping them in their original Ways is the way to go.

However, *if there was a way* to indicate the "primary" relation for a Way,
then I'd be all for it.
IDK. Save space wherever possible seems to be the common theme.
Problems with this though would be that renderers/data consumers would have
to go into the relation every time they want to find more tags for an
There are pros and cons. I'm also aware relations aren't categories.

Thank you for the clarification.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 10:55 AM Hidde Wieringa <hidde at hiddewieringa.nl>

> Hello,
> 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 route).
> 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
> [5]
> https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=2763798&map=4!57.9189!7.9873
> 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 listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://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/20201116/3d8b8b92/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list