[Tagging] Mapping nonexistent paths

[Peter Elderson]

Can't wait!

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 23 mrt. 2021 om 14:59 schreef Seth Deegan <jayandseth at gmail.com>:

> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210323/3b820ae2/attachment-0001.htm>