[Tagging] Recreational routes, roles and name elements

[Peter Elderson]

Hi Warin, thanks for the feedback.

Warin:

> I also have 'day sections' - recommended day 'sections'. I have not
> bothered to map these as I think people using multiple day routes will be
> looking at more than a map for more detailed information?


The operator has these day sections, and includes POIs on the section maps.
We do want to section the routes mainly to keep the relations small and
manageable, and for that we simply use the operator's breakdown. The
sections are not verifiable on the road. The overall name of the path is
repeated on many, though not all, symbol stickers and shields.
If the operator re-organizes the sections, we usually do not bother to
follow.

You are right, for multiday trip planning most people create their own day
sections. Mostly by exporting the main route or separate sections to gpx
and manipulating the tracks in other tools. The site
https://www.longdistancepaths.eu/en/ presents the gpx's (taken from
waymarkedtrails) plus some POIs (mainly towns and cities, PT terminals and
places to stay, taken from OSM using overpass) and lets the user create
their own trips and sections. Sort of OSM-based Tripadvisor.
We need more end user applications like that, for hiking.

> In the example:
>
The 'main' relation and the member relation are all type=nwn ... could not
> the approaches/excursion/'day sections' be type=rwn/lwn??? That could give
> some hint at the differences between them?
>
Since the daily sections are just sections of the main route, we tag those
with the same geographic scope as the main route. Alternatives,approaches
and excursions are often local additions, but they are signposted with the
same symbol (white over red for national and yellow over red for regional)
and are seen as an integral part of the regional or national
route, carrying the same name.
Some hiking trails have separate one-day roundtrips presented by the
operator as part of the trail. Most mappers tag these as local lwn
roundtrips. I thinks it's a corona related trend, you drive somewhere, do a
"Pieterpad day trip" which brings you right back to your car; no PT or B&B
needed. I refuse to count (and map) that as a national hike!
International trails crossing Europe, on the contrary, usually are
iwn relations containing country sections which are national hiking trails
of their own, so the members are nwn. Before the approval of roles, the iwn
routes were more like collections than like routes. Using roles, we can now
map one iwn main route with nwn sections, and nwn/rwn/lwn alternatives,
approaches, excursions and connections.

In short, I think the mapping and tagging scheme is maybe not ideal, but
good enough. Mappers do want the section ref as a separate tag, and I say
that because I see this data element in the name tag everywhere where
sectioning is applied.

As for roles, we have talked about a transfer role, which would indicate a
section using a different transport method, e.g. a rail transfer or a bus
transfer through a tunnel. Also a shortcut role is often suggested, which
would now be roletagged as an alternative, but it's in fact often seen as a
regular part of the main route. You can do the short roundtrip or the long
roundtrip, no preference assigned by the operator.


> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211224/37d06d73/attachment.htm>