[Talk-GB] Tagging the South Dorset Ridgeway (was South West Coast Path Inland)

[SomeoneElse]

On 18/05/2012 23:51, m902 wrote:
>
>  1. Should I add it to the (already too big) South West Coast Path
>     relation? The bits I've looked aren't currently part of any
>     relation. Or should there be a new relation for the South Dorset
>     Ridgeway?
>

Given that the SW Coast Path relation has broken and had to be repaired 
recently, I'd definitely add a new relation for the new bit.  Perhaps it 
makes sense to have a "super relation" for the whole SW path made up of 
smaller relations, of which this can be one alternative route (if I've 
understood the situation properly)?

>  1. Most of the sections I walked today were tagged with 'name=South
>     West Coast Path Inland'. That obviously renders well, but I wonder
>     if it is wise? (try a Nominatim search). As a temporary measure
>     I've changed this to 'name=South Dorset Ridgeway' and
>     alt_name='South West Coast Path Inland'.
>

Unless it's really obvious that the name of a particular piece of path 
is "blah" (as opposed to being part or a longer route called "blah") I'd 
name the relation but I wouldn't name each way "blah".  I'd imagine that 
most data consumers can handle named relations - Garmin users; Lonvia's 
hiking map:

http://hiking.lonvia.de/en/?zoom=11&lat=50.67447&lon=-2.55581

In some cases (e.g. bits of the Pennine Way) it does make sense to name 
individual ways because they're called that and nothing else, but there 
are plenty of other places where it's not the case (regional paths in 
Notts and Derbys near me).  Ultimately it's your call though - you're 
there and we're not.

Cheers,
Andy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20120519/11e3ef80/attachment.html>