[Tagging] Mapping nonexistent paths

[Seth Deegan]

>
> There are nonexistent coastlines at river mouths, for example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/149550311


This is an intersection of 2 ways within each-other's realistic areas. This
will also be covered in my revised highway link proposal.

lectrician1 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Lectrician1>


On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 8:31 AM Seth Deegan <jayandseth at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well Bert, I'll try to convince you why we really need them with my
> proposal.
>
> lectrician1 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Lectrician1>
>
>
> 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 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 listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/d9080d79/attachment.htm>