[Tagging] Proposed features/trailblazed=poles; cairns; symbols ... Approved
mira.mikes at gmail.com
Tue Apr 20 07:40:06 UTC 2021
I changed definition this way:
- trailblazed=symbols can be used only if there is no waymarked route
tagged with a osmc:symbol
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wiki:symbol>=* or just a
colour. If this condition is met trailblazed=symbols can be used and
additional tag can be added osmc:symbol
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:symbol>=* or wiki:symbol
- trailblazed=poles or trailblazed=cairns can be used as combination
with waymarked route tagged by a osmc:symbol
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wiki:symbol>=* or just a colour.
please let me know if this definition is fine know or it still should be
út 20. 4. 2021 v 8:31 odesílatel Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>
> 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 a colour.
> 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.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging