[Tagging] Recreational routes, roles and name elements

[Peter Elderson]

*Issue*
On this list, we have discussed functional roles for recreational routes
relations
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles>,
and about name elements that strictly do not belong in names, but in from,
via, to, ref, and description tags.

*Implementation*
I have partially implemented this in Nederland, for the hiking routes of
the official national operator, Wandelnet. Here
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1572126#map=14/52.3084/6.9348> is
an example, showing the use of roles (<none>=main). The main route
<https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=9853055> shows the use of
from, to etc. to free the name from these descriptive elements. I have also
used description=* to move other non-name information from the name tag,
though I'm not sure it's in this example route.

*Section number*
One element has no approved tag: the section number.
We (Nederland) map each daily stage as a relation, and the name tag of the
section contains the section number (as assigned by the operator). I have
tagged this on the section relation as section_ref=<section number>. The
idea is that ref+section_ref is the official ref of the route, and can be
used to order the section list. But section_ref is not an approved or
conventional tag that data users know and data users and tools appear to
order by name. That's why I left this element in the name tag, for now.

*Future*
Feedback is welcome. I hope my pilot implementation is alright, and I hope
more data users will support the roles and the tags, including section_ref
or maybe some other way to implement section refs.
And I hope more communities will free the name tag from the descriptive
elements that do not belong in a proper name!

Peter Elderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211220/dee6e1dc/attachment-0001.htm>