[Tagging] Mapping nonexistent paths
jayandseth at gmail.com
Tue Mar 23 13:31:34 UTC 2021
Well Bert, I'll try to convince you why we really need them with my
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 8:19 AM Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <
bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> And it is often needed if people map footways/cycleways as separate
> (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 listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging