[Tagging] Mapping nonexistent paths

Bert -Araali- Van Opstal bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
Tue Mar 23 13:07:45 UTC 2021


On 23/03/2021 15:11, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>
>
> Mar 23, 2021, 12:57 by pelderson at gmail.com:
>
>     I tag lots of recreational routes as route relations. A route is a
>     continuous chain of connected ways. In lots of places I need a
>     linking way to keep the chain continuous, especially in hiking
>     routes, because  there is no actual official link or path.
>
>     E.g. Often a cycleway is present for a stretch along a road. Then
>     it just stops. Pedestrians and cyclists will continue on the side
>     of the road. If the path is mapped, it will connect, at the end,
>     to the centerline of the road with a virtual path, to provide a
>     continuous chain for routing (including "manual routing" in route
>     relations). This gets more complicated when footways and cycleways
>     are both mapped separately, which is an increasing trend.
>
The route or way doesn't stop, the pavement stops, the separation stops. 
The route just continues.  Its perfectly OK to map those with our 
current tagging scheme. Why would you want to use link here ? A link is 
very distinguishable in it's function, use and most of the time 
appearance.  It's not a "soft" link.
As you say, if there is no clear separate "link" don't use link. But 
what does "virtual" add here ? Just use surface tagging if you feel the 
need to indicate the different surface of those small links.
>
>
>     You could say it's tagging for the router
>
> I would say that "there is connection between X and Y" is actually 
> mapping reality.
>
> And it is often needed if people map footways/cycleways as separate 
> geometries
> (and it is one of main drawbacks of doing it this way...)
>
>     , but it's standing practice to map for continuity. As soon as
>     routers and the standard OSM track export can be reasonably
>     expected to deal with non-continuous routes and route relations,
>     i.e. finding a solution for missing links which adequately deals
>     with trajectory, access and other characteristics of the terrain
>     where a connection is needed, I am all for mapping just what there is.
>
> Note that is extremely unlikely - there are often small gaps where 
> there is an actual barrier and
> no passage! Distinguishing this two is not easy and trying to guess 
> "there is connection here"
> would result in massive number of false positives.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210323/2152108a/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list