[OSM-talk-be] [hiking] OSM Pff several hours working on this...

[André Pirard]

On 2014-12-03 11:49, Marc Gemis wrote :
> What's fuzzy about the text "To tag a hiking route you create
> a relation <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation> with the
> approbiate tags and add all elements (points and ways) of the hiking
> route to this relation.
Open your eyes: the answer is in the Subject: of your message: "OSM Pff
several hours working on this..."
The fact that mappers don't understand what to, do do it wrong and that
it generates many discussions.
"add all elements (points and ways) of the hiking route to this
relation" is obviousness because a relation without elements makes no
sense and it's useless if the way to do it is not explained precisely,
especially the roles.
A precise, instead of fuzzy, definition doesn't take hours to be
understood and tried, and it doesn't lead to find that JOSM issues
warnings showing that it understood differently.
>
> See also Relation:route
> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route>." which is on the
> page that you mentioned ?  (spelling mistake copied from the page)
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:31 AM, André Pirard
> <A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com <mailto:A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 2014-12-03 07:15, Marc Gemis wrote :
>>
>>     On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:30 PM, André Pirard
>>     <A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com <mailto:A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Usually, hiking routes are designed to be walked in a single
>>         direction (the signs are not well visible in the other) and
>>         that can be stressed with oneway=yes.
>>
>>
>>     Que ? Are you placing oneway=yes on footpaths ?
>     No. If "routes are designed to be walked in a single direction",
>     oneway=yes is tagged on route relations and not on the ways nor on
>     the nodes.  That's obvious and explained at the URLs I mentioned.
>>     Since a walking route is something on-top of existing paths, it
>>     is wrong to add oneway on the path. One can take the path in the
>>     other direction when one does not follow the signposted route. By
>>     putting oneway=yes on the path you just block that possibility
>>     for a navigation device.
>>     This would be the same as putting a oneway=yes on a street, just
>>     because a bus route is only going in one direction through that
>>     street, while it is a two-way street.
>>
>>     One of the relation pages you mention links
>>     to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route where the
>>     roles of the members are explained. Forward & backward are
>>     mentioned there.
>     We know that, but it's the particular usage for hiking routes
>     that's missing and hence fuzzy, which is why Jakka was puzzled.
>>
>>     One can also use http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation to
>>     verify the correctness of a relation. Fill in the number (4225213
>>     from Andrés example)
>>
>>     regards
>>
>>     m
>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20141203/261f2add/attachment.htm>