[Tagging] hiking route from= and to= tags

[Sarah Hoffmann]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 10:35:46PM +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> The Swiss basic network is in essence a node_network where the nodes have
> node names instead of the "legacy" node numbers or codes. 

This statement doesn't hold in reality. The Swiss network is
simply a collection of ways that are waymarked and that form a dense
network all over Switzerland. There happen to be guideposts next to
these marked ways and many of them have a name. But the named ones
are not found on every junction. They are found where there are
relevant landmarks. The exact definition of 'relevant' varies from
canton to canton.

The Swiss network has much more in common with the road network.
There are lots of ways that connect all places in the country with
each other. Where these ways meet you find guidepost to tell you
where they lead. No difference with destination signs on roads here.
And those you'd never call network nodes either.

The 'from' and 'to' tags we want to add are just meant as an informal
description, a helper for the mapper to find their relation and to
get that piece of information away from the name tag where it does
not belong. They are in no way meant to imply any official status of
the relation as a route from A to B.

> Once named nodes are supported, it is not difficult to transform the Swiss
> basic network to a functional node network. With care, because it would
> involve mass edit to add the network:type=node_network tag. And with dull
> but doable work to add the network nodes. Once that is achieved and the
> French keep going, we can use the Knooppuntnet Planner to plan hikes from
> Amsterdam to Escholzmatt over the connected node networks.

Am I right if I assume that this router works by following
complete relations from node to node? Then this is further proof
that the Swiss hiking network is not a node network. Because that
would not work well and give you the oddest detours because of the
missing named guidepost at many junctions.

To get a nice foot routing in Switzerland simply use a standard routing
engine, load all walkable ways into it. Add an approriate property to
the ways that are in a relation of the network and do standard routing
with added weight for these ways. 

Really, we could have mapped the hiking network with a simple tag on
the waymarked ways. There would have been no loss of information. The
current system of using relations is more for convenience of data users
that shouldn't need to implement a special system just for Switzerland.

Sarah

> 
> 
> Fr Gr Peter Elderson
> 
> 
> Op wo 30 jun. 2021 om 20:43 schreef Enno Hermann <enno.hermann at gmail.com>:
> 
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > One question was: How are these basic segments used by data users?
> >> I think mostly to plan routes. Some people prefer to stay on the
> >> network, because it should be suitable for walking and you can follow
> >> the direction signs. So you can look at the map where you have network
> >> routes and plan your trip that way. Where would be a convenient bus stop
> >> to get onto the network or home again after the trip.
> >>
> >
> > To add to this, the Swiss basic network is currently shown on
> > Waymarkedtrails:
> > https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=10!47.1145!8.6308 As far as I
> > know, there are no routers or planners that support it yet.
> >
> > Best,
> > Enno
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >

> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging