[Tagging] issue tag|trailblazed + tag|osmc:symbol / tag|wiki:symbol

[Yves]

Sooner or later, you will have tags on ways and relation for any reason a mapper will see fit.
Better give a sensible definition in the wiki before this spreads to avoid misunderstanding, if possible of course.
Regards,
Yves 

Le 1 juin 2021 16:23:10 GMT+02:00, Jan Michel <jan at mueschelsoft.de> a écrit :
>Hi,
>
>On 01.06.21 08:06, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>> tag|trailblazed is allowed only on ways ... and that's correct
>Is it? I don't see any issue about using it on routes as well. There are 
>cases where this makes a lot more sense. E.g. if there is a trailblazed 
>way over a bridge and there are no signs installed on the bridge, only 
>before and after. Should there be a traiblazed-Tag on the bridge? Or 
>should it be removed and a routing app will output a warning "only 90% 
>of the route are trailblazed"?
>
>
>> tag|osmc:symbol / tag|wiki:symbol is allowed only on relations ... and 
>> that's probably correct too
>Commonly, symbols are only issued for a whole route and not for 
>individual pieces of the way. So, in general the tag should be on the 
>route. But if there is a case where the tag applies to a short way, I 
>don't see a reason to disallow the tag to be added.
>
>> Should be tag|osmc:symbol +  tag|wiki:symbol just simply removed from 
>> suggested combinations?
>Tags should be where they make sense - and if a route is trailblazed
>the tags should be on the route. If a way has a symbol trailblazing 
>without being part of the route, the tags should be on the way.
>
>Note that way markers can either mark the way as such ("here's the 
>way"), or mark the route ("this is scenic route #12").
>
>Jan
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20210601/316794d1/attachment-0001.htm>