[Tagging] Mapping nonexistent paths

Bert -Araali- Van Opstal bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
Tue Mar 23 14:21:05 UTC 2021

And that is much appreciated ! But you didn't convince me yet. I am 
still where we began, so far  no added value for any application in my 
view, putting a lot of energy in writing a very nice proposal by the 
way, but I'm afraid with little result, lot's of lost energy.
I mapped 37000 highways, 26000 waterways, use Maps.Me and OsmAnd as 
routers, look at standard Carto renderings and many others and live in a 
country where there are lots of "informal" and "organic" links and 
highways.  Have build my own maps and routes in QGIS. Never felt I was 
missing something in the routing concept of OSM neither noticed any 
significant objection or need by the community to change it.  But still, 
maybe we are all wrong or too narrow minded... we are open to new ideas 
and concepts, welcome innovation.

But don't just focus on my opinion, it's just one in millions. If you 
don't find consensus in this group, leave it as a documented tag in the 
wiki and see if it becomes popular over time. Propose it again later if 
it finds common ground.


Bert Araali

On 23/03/2021 16:31, Seth Deegan 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 
> <mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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  <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging  <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>     <https://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/c0929ba9/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list