[Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

Brian M. Sperlongano zelonewolf at gmail.com
Tue Nov 17 01:35:35 UTC 2020


I don't map cycle routes, but the issue sounds similar to hiking routes and
administrative boundaries.

Long-distance hiking trails often traverse regular roads in between
stretches of woods.  So the trail's route relation is named "Such and Such
long distance trail" or whatever, but the parts on the road would have the
ways named according to whatever the road's name is.  For sections of trail
that are dedicated to the long distance trail, it may or may not have the
long distance trail's name repeated on the way.

For administrative boundaries, it is common (but not universal) to
duplicate relation tagging on member ways.  Both the relation AND the
member ways might have boundary=administrative, admin_level=, place=, etc.
This is something I run into because I develop an application that consumes
boundary data.  The duplication is unnecessary and just contributes to
database bloat.  I've actually gone as far as drafting a proposal [1] to
change the documentation that currently suggests this duplication.

[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:ZeLonewolf/proposals/Boundary_relation_way_members


On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 11:50 AM Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:

> The ways making up a cycle route typically have names themselves, and the
> Route name normally is not the name of the way,
> Hence in many cases this would be a mapping error, i.e. the name of the
> way is not correctly tagged in the database.
>
> There may be exceptions to this general, abstract statement, so it would
> be useful if you could five pointers to specific examples.
> For example it is well possible that a local administration assigns the
> name of the Route as name to a specific way that is part of the Route, so
> certainly any corrections need either local knowledge or street level
> photos that show name signs (e.g. Mapillary)
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> <#m_4670866037759433494_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 17:22, Seth Deegan <jayandseth at gmail.com> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201116/4322ff84/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list