[Tagging] issue tag|trailblazed + tag|osmc:symbol / tag|wiki:symbol
penegal.fr at protonmail.com
Wed Jun 2 08:25:02 UTC 2021
I totally agree with Jan: typically, hiking routes are trailblazed and use many OSM ways with a unique symbol; in this case, using trailblazed=*+osmc:symbol=* on the route makes more sense, as the symbols are related to the route, not to the different path segments. Without these routes, the paths would have no symbol and would not be trailblazed.
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Am Dienstag 1 Juni 2021 16:23 schrieb Jan Michel <jan at mueschelsoft.de>:
> 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").
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging