[Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

Hidde Wieringa hidde at hiddewieringa.nl
Mon Nov 16 18:15:57 UTC 2020

You indicate that you are aware that relations aren't categories [1]. So 
indeed, grouping elements which share a certain tag is not useful. 
Finding nodes/ways that contain a certain tag is easily possible with 
specialized query tooling such as the Overpass API [2]. Data duplication 
across elements is not really an issue, and simplicity and correctness 
are more important.

What do you mean by the "primary relation for a way"? Relations group 
elements together, and as such a way can be part of any number of 
relations. The way itself does not 'know' if it is part of any relations 
(although you could query such information).

I want to mention tools like Osm2pgsql [3] which transforms the OSM data 
model to a relational database such as PostgreSQL. You can import vast 
amounts of data and pre-process it for your specific application if you 
so desire. You could group certain information together if your use-case 
would benefit from it.

Kind regards,
/Hidde Wieringa/

[2] https://dev.overpass-api.de/overpass-doc/en/
[3] https://osm2pgsql.org/

On 16-11-2020 18:13, Seth Deegan wrote:

> 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 element.
> 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 <mailto:hidde at hiddewieringa.nl>> wrote:
>     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
>     <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name>
>     [2]
>     https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Rendered_cycle_maps
>     <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#Rendered_cycle_maps>
>     [3] https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org
>     <https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org>
>     [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:superroute
>     <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:superroute>
>     [5]
>     https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=2763798&map=4!57.9189!7.9873
>     <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 list
>>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org  <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging  <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Seth
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f95164c9/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list