[Tagging] Proposed features/trailblazed=poles; cairns; symbols ... Approved
pelderson at gmail.com
Tue Apr 20 06:25:18 UTC 2021
Jaromír Mikeš <mira.mikes at gmail.com>:
> Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com>:
>> I find this:
>> There must be taken extra caution when using trailblazed=symbols this
>> tag should be never used when there is "normal" marking on relation to
>> avoid confusions and double tagging !!!
>> to be completely not understandable:
>> - What is "normal" (and why is in quotes, other than the usual reason
>> that people put words in quotes to indicate that they don't really
>> know what they mean).
> You are right I am struggling to find the right term for the common marked
> trail tagged by osmc:symbol on relation ...
What you are suggesting?
>> - Is a simple color blaze a symbol?
> Might be if having the shape of a symbol.
> - Is best practice to use osmc:symbol to describe the blazes?
> It is possible ... it is hopefully clear from the "Values" table and
> "Examples" table
> Isn't it?
>> - If there is an osmc:symbol tag, is it then the recommendation not to
>> add trailblazed=symbol?
> If there is already an osmc:symbol tag on relation then it is not
> recommended to add trailblazed=symbols on way.
> This is more precise I believe. You would prefer such a definition?
A route is waymarked, tagged with a symbol or osmc:symbol or sometimes just
It may contain ways visible only by special "trailblazes", and the route's
waymarks are not necessarily showing where the way is. The "trailblazed"
tag is on the way and marks the path. The route symbol is on the route
relation and shows where the route goes.
If an otherwise invisible path belongs to a route, situations may differ.
* The route's symbol may be the only marking showing where the way is. Then
the way would get trailblazed=symbol (or simply yes)
* The route's waymarkings do not (or ar not enough to) show the invisible
way. E.g. just poles, no route symbols at all on that secftion. Then the
way gets trailblazed=poles (or simply yes).
Nederland has routes like this. There is a trend to remove hiking route
symbols from e.g. a dune area and let the hiker find his or her way to the
next pole somewhere on a dune top.Then the mappers draws a way following
the line of poles, just avoiding obstacles, and this way will be included
in the route relation(s), even though there is no route symbol along the
* Since there are poles showing where the path is, the route's symbols are
conveniently attached to the poles.Then the way still gets
trailblazed=poles or yes, and the route still gets symbol or osmc:symbol.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging