[Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

Seth Deegan jayandseth at gmail.com
Tue Nov 17 05:00:15 UTC 2020


And of course, I have got this response before. But now that I think about
it, the limiting factors seem to be:

   1. Editors (I use iD primarily) do not allow you to easily see the
   *exact* past history of an element. Nor does osm.org really (why does it
   give a list of changed elements and map area and not even allow you to see
   what tags and elements' geography are changed!?). OSMcha only does it on a
   per-changeset basis. https://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/ does this
   perfectly.
   2. What if the source is in a changeset 2+ changesets ago? I shouldn't
   have to look back in the history to find a source.


On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 9:09 PM Seth Deegan <jayandseth at gmail.com> wrote:

> May I ask why not source=*? I know it's basically depreciated, but many
> times I find myself wondering where past mappers got the info for a route
> (this happened just today). I would find it very helpful. It also doesn't
> require the tagging of all of the ways.
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 8:45 PM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 9:20 PM Dave F via Tagging <
>> tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Be careful. This is where many contributors get confused. The name of
>>> the *path* is often not the name of the *route*. A route relation can, &
>>> often does, go along paths with different names. Multiple routes can go
>>> along a path.
>>>
>>
>> To give a more concrete example, there's a rail-trail in my neighborhood
>> called the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail.
>> It has a relation, for several reasons that I'll discuss below.  Most of
>> its member ways are also named 'Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail'. There are a
>> few ways, however, that have the names of highways because freeways and
>> active rail lines interrupt the rail grade, and the trail follows some
>> lightly-trafficked streets for a short distance before rejoining the
>> grade.  Those ways have name='Dunsbach Ferry Road', name='Island View
>> Road', name='Scrafford Lane', name='Iroquois Street', etc, but remain
>> members of the route named 'Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail'. (Actually,
>> there are two route relations: one for cycling and one for walking.)
>>
>> Large portions of the rail-trail are, in turn, used by two long-distance
>> routes: the Erie Canalway Trail and the Empire State Trail.  There are
>> separate relations for these two, and most of the members of the
>> Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail are also members of these other relations.
>> (That does not affect the names of the member ways. The Mohawk-Hudson
>> signage is consistent, while the signage for the other two trails is still
>> something of a work in progress, although there's a lot more of it than
>> there used to be. The naming of the member ways follows the commonest
>> signage.)
>>
>> There are a great many member ways because of changes of the
>> characteristics of the way (bridge=yes, embankment=yes, bicycle=dismount,
>> surface changing from asphalt to wood on a bridge, and so on.)
>>
>>>
>> The Mohawk-Hudson relation exists (a) because not all the member ways
>> have its name (since it borrows roads for short segments) and (b) because
>> Waymarked Trails and other data consumers do better with a route relation
>> grouping all the ways, rather than trying to assemble a route from ways
>> with nothing in common other than being named alike.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> It renders the names of the paths, not the routes.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>>
>>> Surface has no place in a route relation as it refers diectly to the
>>> path, not the multiple relations passing along it. Similar for the source
>>> tag.
>>>
>>> DaveF
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Seth
>


-- 
Thanks,
Seth
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201116/8797962a/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list