[Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

Seth Deegan jayandseth at gmail.com
Mon Nov 16 18:50:49 UTC 2020

Hidde thank you for the resources. I am aware of them. Also thank you for
mentioning Osm2pgsql. I know what it is, but your comment about how it's
meant compile relational data vs. how the OSM DB isn't is very true.

Thank you for the clarification too Peter.

I guess I'm just obsessed with relational DB models.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 12:23 PM Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:

> AFAIK, a relation is meant to represent an entity of its own, which can be
> observed and verified in the field.
> Its tags should be the tags of this entity, not the tags shared by the
> members. It's not a relational database model.
> If many streets are called "Polygon Alley" you tag each one with
> name=Polygon Alley. No normalization applies, just tag it.
> Best, Peter Elderson
> Op ma 16 nov. 2020 om 18:17 schreef Seth Deegan <jayandseth at gmail.com>:
>> 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>
>> 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
>>> [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
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Seth
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20201116/664d23be/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list